Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x8704 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

TIMBER" AND TYRES.
AN IMPORTANT ENQUIRY.
The Prices Commission, Messrs. IT. R.
Davidson (chairman), P. J. A. Lawrence,
and F. Condon, opened, an enquiry-on
Tuesday with regard to alleged comraies
and trusts. The first matter mentioned
was the case of the Adelaide Timber Mer
chants' Association. Dr. Donald Aerr ap
peared to assist the Commission, and Mr.
Villeneuve Smith, K.C., represented the
association. . ,
The Chairman .said section 42 of the
Prices Regulation Act gave the Commis
sion power to require by notice the pro
duction of all books, papers, and docu
ments of any concern. The Commission
desired to test the agreements of the asso
ciation With regard to part 3 oE Aeb which
dealt with combines.
Mr. Smith said_the_aMoriariQnJiadl:Con-,
formed £cT~thVsiimfions"bf the Cominis;
siou and produced all books which could
foe fairly designated papers and documents
in relation to the Adelaide Timber Mer
chants' Association. They were anxious
to facilitate the work of the Commission j
and were producing everything in their
possession that was relevant to the asso
ciation as a voluntary assembly of timber
merchapiB. who from time to time con
ferred in regard to their mutual interests.
The Chairman—The prices of timber
have in the past been fixed by mutual
agreement. We -want to know the actual
facts. .
Mr. Smith said he produced a nrmute
bqok, but he claimed that the Commis
sion had no. power to consider entries
made prior to the passing of the Act.
The matter was adjourned sine die to
consider the point raised by Mr. Smith.
Motor Tyres.
The case of the South Australian Motor
Tyre Traders' Association was .next con
sidered. Mr. R. W. Bennett represented
Messrs. W. <3, Kifiher and H. W. H.
Tracy.
Air.. Bennett drew the attention of the
Commission' to the faet that G. Munxo,
Perdrian Rubber Company, Begot, Shakes
and Lewis, McGregor, and Cheney Motor
Company were in no way interested in the
proceedings, and had never been members
of the association.
The Chairman said that was the first
time in ithe history of the State that an
eiyjuirv of this 'kind had been held.
.Jr. Kerr, in outlining the objectives of
the Commission, said in his opinion the
Act clearly contemplated that trade com
binations were of two classes, lawful and
unlawful, and that it was only with re
gard to unlawful trade combinations thai
the. Legislature contemplated .that the
Commission should exercise its functions
of declaring, the trade fcombinafion to ns
a "commercial trust." He was not a
prosecuting counsel, but an adviser merely.
He advised the Commission that as a mat
ter of law it should not declare the- S.A.
Motor Tire Traders' Association to be a
commercial trust, unless it was satisfied
that there was at least prima fade evi
dence that the association was committing,
or had been formed for the purpose ot
committing an offence or.offences against
the Act. The association, had been dealt
with by the Commission as the guardian
of the public interest. It wbs for tne
Commission to find prima facie that the
association would restrain the freedom of
trade. It was his duty to point out and
advise that restraint of trade was not un
lawful if it was reasonable, both in refer
ence_ to the interests of the • contracting
parties and in reference to the interests ot
the public. The question of intent or no
intent had to be settled by reference' to
the evidence and the documents be
fore the Commission^ must foe 'con
sidered in the light of that evidence.
Whatever caused loss or disadvan
tage or prejudice to the public, including
in the term "public" all classes—traders
as well as consumers—were to .its. detri
ment? Mere combination with intention
to raiee-the price was not necessarily detri
meniai .10 me .public.
Mr. Bennett objected to Dr. Kerr's re
ference to the fact that he was not a pro
secuting counsel. That.-was claptrap and
introduced an air of criminality into the
proceedings. " No one had suggested that
he was there, to prosecute. The.Act did
not divide associations into- two classes.
The term "commercial trust" was purely a
technical expression. A y declaration by
the Commission .would not make an associa
tion an unlawful trust, but it cast the onus
on the defendants in subsequent proceed
ings. He claimed that the activities or
the association were not in any way re
strained by the provisions,«jf the Act, that
its activities, disclosed by the agreement,
in now way conflicted with those provi
sions, and that the existence of ithe asso
ciation, .benefited rather than prejudiced
the public. It had' -been formed to pro
tect the trade with regard ito certain dis
counts, and in no way controlled prices.
The retailers received discount on the
condition that thev -rendered certain ser
vices, and the association had been estab
lished to enforce those conditions. The
scheme had failed, and before the enquiry
•had been begun it had been decided to
disband the 'body. In view of that fact
no good purpose could be served by going
on with the enquiry. He suggested _that
the proceedings should lie adjourned for a
month, at the end of which time the con
cern would have been wound up.
(Left sitting.)
$