The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

:ATTORNEY-CENERAL i JUDGE AND JURY. Stamped Ware in Close Relation to Cost of Living schedule: all goods Wfl'f' to ln. mm- signed to honv, fide mar-ms. and a, minimum prtuihy of $100 was to he be imposed for a violation of the agreement. This agreement was clearly in restraint of trade. as de- clared under the srctions of the criminal code, my] tloc. Attnrmy. General in with0towim: lltrs m'nscmt- tion hall been actually working in the face of that Law. Contravened the Law. The effect of the agreement was in direct opposition to the enact- ment of the Federal Parliament. They combins-d under a "systemutie arrangement for tixfng tho price of articles of onmnnm consumption." Dropped Prosecution on Ad. vice of Crown Counsel Against Grocers Mr. Elliott preceded hls motiott with a review of the circumstam-es attaining the prosecution. He rofc-r. red to an agi'eenu-nt lwtwovn the Mu- Clary Manuruetuviriv: t'onnmm. Lon- don; E. T. "Wright MrtttuCtcturing Campum'. Toronto. and the Thos. Dat idson l 'o 1mm my. Montreal. dated No'fcmiwr It, 1904, which sought to regulate the price and sales of goods manufactured hy these fiptus. The prices were in be fixed by Pri m"- u t In)" ms assoc duced price, duced to $5t certain cliurl ation." he s by thesn gum reducing Cue Attorney-General Fog: again took the position that u prosecuriun of this association would not have born in the interests of justice. Mr. George T. Blackstm-k, tijiO Was Crown counsel. had tur.us d that this and othey (rages stunt] ole',' until tho deCiSion in the grocars' combine case. in which the strongest evidence had hem} secured, was given. - to Tits' 1) poveurislit" Attorne the posith associatio: interests 1 tween the Gorttmttu?nt and Front]. counsel in ("unwrirm with tho mum)- cutlon of the Stumped Ware Assosia- tion, which manufacturos tinwurc, kettles. pails. Cooking utensils and the Mr. it tho Attor Anothov combine case iutd an lng in the Legxslznuru yestmwlug'. time the urtic'lcs affectvd had a C relation to tho cost of living tucks. The discussion nrusn out motion by Mr. J. C. Elliot: l the Attovttoy-t-i vested himself Judge and ju fail was that " Nothing but] h the opinion of like. lacks . motion M Md le: tween nxwll took the position that 'tttv-General should not have muselt' Is ith tho duties of 1d jury. The only (2.5." to let of tho :g'ruvnrs' commute. had been dun:- Feyond taking on of counsel. "rANO THEE--COMBINE CA" SE , AIRED 11v LEGISLA TURE mugs] , A Y. FERN! xx RY [88101] nt"O,hit" out I. C. Elliot: l rvturn of lrrattrt. I clo: "'I'St by roma- H" list 4 In the case of the Stamped Ware Association the Crown seized the books, but after an examination the association went out of existence, said Mr. Fay. He read a long letter from Mr. George T. Blackstock, ll ho was Crown counsel at the time, and con- ducted the case against the Grocers' Guild. The effect of Mr. Blackstock's letter was that it was inadvisable to go on with the other prosecutions. as the evidence in the Grocers' case was undoubtedly the strongest, and as that failed there was less chance of the others succeeding. It would hare been an injustice to have gone on un- der such circumstances where there was but a remote chance of securing a conviction. and he agreed with Mr. Blackstock's recommendation. to withold the prosecutions in the other cases until that one had been tried. Attects the Price. Mr. Allan Studtholme lEast Hamil.. ton) looked at the matter in the light of its effect on the cost of living. Whatever claw might be said, it "as clear that the cost of livirig had been enhanced by agreements such as thr. one referred to in the discussion. It was not the first time that the mat- ter had been called to the attention of the Government. Mr. w. Jo. McPherson (West Toronto) had pointed out the weaknesses of tho anti-combine bill. Becauso the, 1Jr'o- secutiott against the Grocers' Guild failed, it did not follow that the others would also. Toronto recently had " case where a young lawyer won a decision against the opinion of learned counsel. The eyes of the civilized world were turned against the com- Continuing, Mr. b'oy explained that a great deal of misapprehension Ph'- isted in reference to mmbinvs. Tho law was not against combines. Thw law permits some combines. Son": were laudable and effoc-tt-d a good purpose. The law was against undue limitation, to unduly lessen manufac- ture or lessen competition. or any' unreasonable enhancement of price. The essence of crime was not a com- bination of manufacturers. mert'hants or traders. It is only with those who cross the border line .and make their combination undue and unreasonable that the offence arose. It was a dit- iicuit matter to decide when the price had been unduly enhanced. The pro- secution of the Grocers' Guild was a case in point. No 'answer could be given that would apply to all. livery case had to stand upon its merits. In the Grocers' Guild gase the Govern- ment thought it had sufficient evi- dence to warrant a conviction, hut Chief Justice Falconbridge acquitted the defendants, stating that although there was an agreement it did not come within the provisions of the criminal code. Association Obsolete. respondence of any kind answered the description. It contained a state- ment that there were instructions issued. If the clause was amended to read "if any," it would he quitr» in order to pass. Undue Restriction. as appears to me as absolutely CCT- Iain mists." (Applause.) The Attorney-General said there "as no objection to the order hass- ing. The second part of the return "as objectionable, because no 1701'- 1 1913. '. Blackstuck's inadvisable to 'osecutions. as cers' cases was