125

H.—3o.

Mr. Skerrett: It was so decided by Mr. Justice Sim in the charge of conspiracy against the flour-millers of trying to monopolize the flour trade contrary to the public interest. Those are the very words of the statute, and His Honour did not allow a number of sheep-farmers or any one else to be called as to what was meant as contrary to public interest. So in the Goal Vend case. It was decided by Mr. Justice Isaacs, whose decision was reversed by the High Court of Australia, whose decision was again confirmed by the Privy Council. None of these tribunals admitted this ridiculous evidence which is suggested, and so I would point out —even if the words " public interest " were used—that is a pure matter of law. Mr. .Johnston: I would point out that there is known to have been an agitation throughout the country against trusts —against the operation of freezing companies. The Legislature passed an amendment to the Slaughtering Act of 1908 which when it was enacted had no reference whatever to trusts. Nor in 1918 when they passed an amendment is there any reference to trusts. They merely passed an amendment to the 1908 Act saying that the Minister shall have power to grant or refuse a license. Now, sir, if any one takes up that report of the Committee of 1917, the ordinary person would think that would have led to a Bill being placed on the statute-book, but what was done was that this power was given to the Minister of Agriculture ; it was inserted as an amendment to the Slaughtering Act. There is no preamble at all. Well now, the question before this Commission is, Has that power been properly inserted ? We go to the statute-book : there is no preamble, and con sequently one lias to go to the report of the 1917 Committee or to Hansard to find out what was intended. I say we are entitled as our duty to give evidence to the Commission of what we consider is our acknowledged public duty in this matter. It is idle for my learned friends to suggest that the idea of public interest in this matter is to be found in the minds of lawyers. The relative importance of safeguarding the interests of the banks or of the producers cannot be determined by this Commission Page 240. unless they understand the dangers from which the producers suffer if this class of corporation is allowed to own freezing-works. It is only from the farmers themselves that you can appreciate the importance of their complaint. By allowing Yesteys to operate in the way they are allowed by the Minister of Agriculture the producers are being penalized, and until that is understood by the Commission I submit this evidence is necessary to the Commission to properly determine this matter. The Chairman : We are not deciding the matter, Mr. Johnston ; but how do you consider that this evidence is going to help the Commission ? Sir John Findlay : As I told you earlier, sir, the Government wants to avoid any appearance of raising any technical objections to evidence which will touch the merits of this inquiry. You may naturally conclude that it would be very bad policy on the part of the Government to seem anxious to exclude evidence which touches the real merits of this case. Having said that and further that with regard to the admission or exclusion of evidence I am going to leave that question to the discretion of the Commission. But may I point out that the Government are here because it is not merely the Minister of Agriculture —the whole of the Government stands behind him to determine the main question—Was the Minister guilty of a breach of duty or of something contrary to public interest when he consented to that transfer of the license ? My friend says that the people judge by what a lot of gentlemen think regarding the evils of trusts. You are going to have a flood of evidence if you do not rule it out —there will be a score of persons to talk about the inherent evils of trusts. I suggest that the Minister had himself to decide whether in the circumstances it was contrary to public interest. Now, sir, look at the things that made up that question. First, there was the information that Mr. Nosworthy got a long communication from Mr. Rowlands. He put Mr. Rowlands through a long examination, and arrived at the conclusion that he could not, on the ground of it being contrary Page 241. to public interest, refuse the issue of a license or a renewal of it. How, then, can it be relevant that certain gentlemen are called to say that trusts are a great evil in themselves ? I submit it is not relevant. If it were I should be glad to admit it. lam prepared to admit any evidence that can establish that Vesteys was a trust to the knowledge of the Minister, but I say it is a waste of time to allow a torrent of evidence to come in to the effect that trusts in themselves are an evil. Every one admits they are. The Chairman : I was going to ask, Mr. Johnston, as to how you think this proposed evidence, which is apparently directed against the evils of trusts generally, is to help the Commission when Vesteys had at the time of this occurrence actually got a license with a statutory authority in that particular district. Mr. Johnston : That we have known all along was a difficulty. That was the sole justification — at least, not the sole one —for the action of the Minister, and no doubt the existence of the existing license is the other justification. It is a very hard question to answer. But apart from that the question arises whether the fact of Vesteys or Armours or any one else buying up derelict licenses from, bankrupt companies is going to entitle them to operate. We do not think the existing legislation meets that, but that is the real difficulty that the farmer feels. We do not know that the Minister could have refused the license ; it is a question whether he could have refused ; he had great difficulties ; it is no use denying it; and if he was not misled by the bank it is possible he had no other course. The Government does not want to see Vesteys established here any more than we do ; they have the strongest objection to it. They find themselves in this difficulty, and it is a question for a Commission. We have to say that the existence of derelict licenses, the fact that they buy up an extinct volcano, an old rubbish-heap, should not give them a right to future aggregation.