WOOL BOYCOTT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 127, 1 June 1938, Page 7

WOOL BOYCOTT.

COLONIAL PRODUCE.

Abolition of Draft Allowance

Rouses Anger.

MOVEMENT IN BRITAIN.

United Press Associaton. —Copyright. x

LONDON, May 31

The possibility of the abolition of the draft allowance on Austi-alian and New Zealand wool has aroused such resentment in Yorkshire that the British Wool Federation has sent a circular to members asking if- in that event they would be prepared to bovcott the colonial wool sales of 1938-39.

The questionnaire makes it clear that such a boycott would be contingent upon 80 per cent of members agreeing and Japan's taking the same action.

The Australian Associated Press understands Bradford's view is that politicians in Australia and New Zealand have magnified the issue out of its real importance. They contend that the draft allowance does not cost the growers the sums alleged; that, on the contrary, it is necessary to offset the minor variations in weight to which wool is liable, and also the introduction of extraneous matter.

Bradford especially regrets that at a time when wool is facing world problems Australia and New Zealand thus ulienate buyers. It is also pointed out that growers would not necessarily benefit from the abolition of the draft allowance; on the contrary, it would mean greater vigilance on the part of buyers, who would claim full allowance for tare and accidental short weight. A season's accumulated claims for tare alone would be sufficient to offset what the grower would gain from the draft ullowance.

Farmers in New Zealand have for years boon pressing for the abolition of the draft allowance on wool, according, to a statement made this morning by Mr. B. J. Jlarquet, chairman of the Auckland Wool Brokers' Association. He understands, however, that the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, has stated that no ."otion will be taken unless there is agreement on the question between New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. Mr. Marquet is extremely doubtful whether any action will be taken in face of the opposition from tiie wool buyers. He considers that farmers would, in 4uch case, be woi-se off than before.