H.—3o

126

Page 242. Mr. Skerrett: May I point out that Mr. Johnston's argument is based on an entire misconception of the statute. He commenced by saying that there were provisions which prevent the alienation of freezing-works when sold by a mortgagee. There are no such provisions in the statute. There is no provision in the statute by which any authority, whether Minister or otherwise, can prevent the exercise of a mortgagee's power of sale. Until the Act of 1918 a slaughterhouse license could not be refused to any slaughterman or company of good character. Then came the provisions of the Act of 1918. I want to call your attention to the provision of that statute. Section 7, subsection (1), of that Act gives the general discretion to the Minister of Agriculture in respect of the granting, renewal, or transfer of a license. Now, under the particular section which indicates the ground upon which that discretion is to be exercised, without in any way restricting the discretionary i ower, he may refuse his consent under this section if he is of opinion, on such grounds as in his discretion he deems sufficient, (a) that the business of the meat-export slaughterhouse has been carried on, or (b) is about to be carried on, in a manner contrary to the public interest. Now, sir, the question is, Has the particular exporter or slaughterman carried on his business heretofore in a manner contrary to the public interest ? The other question is, Has the applicant for the export license— if he has not carried on business heretofore —does he intend to carry on in a manner contrary to public interest ? It is not the action of trusts generally, it is the action of a particular individual that is to be determined Has he carried on his business in a manner contrary to the public interest, or does lie intend to do so 1 Now, sir, all that is evidentiary. We have no objection to any evidence as to the manner in which they have carried on their business in New Zealand. Mr. Lysnar can call as much evidence as he pleases to show the method in which these people have carried on their business here—that we Page 243. cannot object to. All that is evidentiary and relates to Yesteys ; it does not relate to the general question of trusts at all. May I point out to the Commission what must be obvious to them, that if the objection is a sound one the Minister, according to the farmers, is to refuse an export license to every proprietary slaughterhouse, every proprietary owner of freezing-works. It would mean that a license must be refused to every exporter in a large way,of business in New Zealand. It is the exporter's license lam referring to ; they cannot take the slaughterhouse license away. Under the Slaughterhouse Inspection Act of 1908 you will see that a license can only be refused if the applicant is not of good character or the premises are insanitary. The Minister's sole control is under the Act of 1918 ; he has nothing to do with the Slaughterhouse license under the Slaughtering and Inspection Act. I still say that it would be of no interest or instruction to this Commission that a number of gentlemen should come here and tell us they object to large proprietary firms who are exporting meat - -that cannot help us. The only evidence which it is submitted this Commission ought to consider is evidence showing that Yesteys in New Zealand have carried on their business, whether of selling or exporting, in a manner contrary to the public interest. It is the acts of Yesteys with which you are concerned and not the general case of trusts or large proprietary concerns. It is submitted that it would never do if concerns are to be confiscated, if businesses are to be closed up, because a number of farmers come along and state their objection to a particular business because it is proprietary and not co-operative. The reference to the public interest in the Order in Council obviously refers to the duty of the Minister under the statute. You are really asked to review the question whether anything was known or brought before the Minister relating to the conduct or actions of Vesteys Page 244. either as meat-exporters or as meat-export slaughtermen. And it is submitted that it would be monstrous to allow a vast mass of this evidence to be called. The Chairman : I suppose Mr. Duxfield would like to know whether to wait or not. I think it is only right to ask this : is Mr. Duxfield's evidence dir.ected to trusts generally or at Vesteys in particular '? Mr. Lysnar : A certain portion relates to Vesteys. Mr. Skerrett: We do not object to any evidence on the part of Vesteys. Mr. Lysnar : It is general as well. The Chairman : We all know of the controversy going, on about the butter-control. I suppose one section of the community has one idea and the other an entirely different one about the public interest. The opinion of two classes of the community is opposed. It is quite clear that if the scope of the order of reference had included anything regarding the necessity or expediency of any proposed legislation that this Commission would be viewing this matter in an entirely different way. We will consider our decision. Mr. Lysnar: My friends on the other side admit the danger of these trusts. It is admitted all round. The Chairman : Perhaps Sir John is the most vitally interested. It is admitted that certain trusts have to be controlled. There is recent legislation on that point. Sir John Findlay: When the Committee of 1917 reported that legislation should be passed to control trusts the legislation was passed, and that control at present is probably as complete as legislation can make it. It gives great power and discretion to the Minister of Agriculture. If on inquiry he finds that the methods by which any meat-works is carrying on its operations are contrary to public interest he can at once revoke the license ; he can refuse to renew the license, and without a license they cannot export at all. Now, the Government is alive to the necessity for watching carefully the operations of these large meat companies. Dr. Reakes as part of his duties has to watch