THE HARVESTER TRUST..

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 71, 21 September 1905, Page 2

THE HARVESTER TRUST..

■ DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. \> WHAT IS THE REMEDY? The subject of the Harvester Trust, referred to in a question by Mr. Taylor, the answer to which was published yesterday, led to some discussion in the House. Mr. Fowlds did not agree with the suggestion that the Harvester Trust intended, after having gained the New Zealand trade, to put the price of the article up to an enormous extent, and he argued strongly against the proposal to keep the colonial trade alive by means of a subsidy in the shape of a Customs tariff. It would be better, he urged, to subsidise the employees, and let them walk, idly about, than to put a 40 per cent, duty on the implements manuiactured here. There were several advantageq that naturally belonged to the production of any kind of goods on a large scale, and he remarked that the movement now in progress would grow until the colony was saddled with a prohibitive duty in the interests of a small number of workers, and the whole country would suffer. Mr. T. Mackenzie said that it -was not to be supposed that local implement; makers would secure the colonial trade unless they could prove they could supply as good and useful an article as the Harvester Trust and at the same price. Mr. Kirkbride said he was a farmer, and did not think that any of the farmers would join in this agitation. When tho Tariff Commission sat in 1895 r he took -a prominent part in trying to get a reduction of duty On farm implements. His evidence then was to the effect that the American machines were belter than the colonidlly-mude article ; it was not only a question of cost, and they did not want to be bound down to take any article made in New Zealand. He should certainly oppose any revision of the tariff which would raise the price of farm implements. Mr. Bedford said it was true that local manufacturers had nob been able to produce reapers and binders which could compete successfully with the articles made by the Trust, but he pointed pub that the 'Trust manufactured everything which was required by the farmer. He believed in fair trade, but could not look •without some apprehension on the operations of the Trust. They knew that trusts invariably indulged ,in unfair methods to destroy competitors, and then when they controlled the market prices wen 6 up. This Trust had only ben in operation since 1902. and yet it had made a profit of £8,000,000, half of whicH was declared to bo illegitimate, and had already had a very injurious effect on the implement tiaJe in Australia. It completely dominated the American market, and was now extend-* ing its operations all over the world. Once it closed up our manufactories it would make the colony pay for the losses incurred in securing the New Zealand market. It would not bs seriously hampered by a 40 per cent, duty, if it set out to obtain complete control of the market, and the only way to stem the .injurious effect would be to prohibit by legislation the importation of the goods of the Trust. A 40 per cent. . duty would injuriously affect several companies which are trading in a perfectly legitimate manner. The Commerce Committee of the Houkb could do nothing better than taking evidence as to the methods pursued by trusts operating in New Zealand. The matter was not likely to be dealt with this session, and that meant that it would have time to continue its operations for some eight months without let or hindrance. Something, he urged, should be done this session. Mr. Buchanan remarked that the Commerce Committee -was appointed at the beginning of the session, and had never yet met. The Government lacked prac-. tical methods in conducting the business of tho House. As to protection, he urged that it was Protection which had produced the Harvester Trust. He was in favour of seeing local industries flourish, but the best way to secure that •was not by means of -a high tariff. Our dairy producers and meat-growers had to face the markets of the world, with no assistance except the South African service subsidy, and that meant really a bonus of J33 10s a ton for all the produce sent there. If they shut out the Trust's implements, would they not be likely to have a local Implement Trust? New Zealand already had a Flour Trust. Mr. Ell vr b <ed that the State should interfere in the matter, as he regarded the Trust as a menace to the colony. The Leader of the Opposition had no sympathy with trusts and combines, but he did not think it would be in the interests of the colony to impose a prohibitive duty upon machines required by the farmers of the country. The debate was interrupted by the expiry of the time allowed for discussing the question.