The Press. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. THE RAILWAYS AND THE FROZEN MEAT INDUSTRY.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11460, 19 December 1902, Page 4

The Press. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. THE RAILWAYS AND THE FROZEN MEAT INDUSTRY.

In his speech as Chairman of the Canterbun' Frozen Meat Company. Sir George j Clifford did good service in drawing atj wntion to the unfair manner in which the I Canterbury meat-freexing companies nre handicapped and the profits of the fanners reduced by excessive railway rates. After reading the comparative figures he supplied, on« is forced to the conviction that, ns he said, the Government departments do not realise the importance of the frozen m«t industry to the colony vrheu distributing their favours. The difference between the rules in force on the other side compared with those iiapo-cd l»j the Xcw Zea?iad Railway De-

partment is amazing. Calculated on a basis of 15 miles, tie distanoa between Belfast and Lyttelton, the carriage of frozen meat in Victoria costs Iβ 9d p*r ten, in New South Wales Iβ 4sd, and in New Zealand 7s 6d. Victoria oh&rges 3s lid for tallow, New South Wales 3s, New Zealand 8s 6d. For preserved meats the rates are, in the order given above, 3s 4d, 2s sd, and 7s 6d; manures Iβ Bd, Is 6d, and 3s. Wβ could go on quoting)' from Sir George Clifford's figures a number of similar instances of th« New Zealand rates being anything from cne-lhird to four times greater than those charged to the Australian meat companies, but w have mentioned sufficient to prove that the New Zealand and Australian scales bear no reasonable relation to each other. The case is made all th« worse from the fact that such marked difference is peculiar to articles* connected with the frozen meat industry, a* if the Department set itself to bie*d that mainstay of the New Zealand farmer, simply because it. is prosperous. The system of overcharging this one industry would bs bnd enough if it was made generally applicable to all the meat-freezing companies in the colony. But an investigation of the rates charged to the Canter bury and Wellington Companies respectively reveals a difference in favour of the latter that is grossly unjust to the fanners in this province." On the basis of eight miles, the distance between Petone atad Wellington, the Gear Company pays 2s 8d per ton on preserved meats against thfi ordinary charge, which ie imposed on the Canterbury companies, of 5& 2d; 8d per bale on wool against.gne shilling; 3s per ton on tallow against 5s 7d. On the basis of five miles, the distance between Ngahauranga and i Wellington, the Wellington Meat Export Company pays 2s 6d a ton on meats against Canterbury , * 4s 2d, 2e 6d on taEow against 4e 4d, sixpence per bale on wool against one shilling. There can be no possible justification for such partiality towards the Wellington companies, and we are curious to see what excuse the Minister for Railways will make when his attention is directed to the subject. The matter is one which cannot be allowed to rest where n. j,«. These railway overcharges are a lirect tax upon the producer, and they must nare the effect of handicapping Canterbury's great industry against its rivals in the London markets. We are constantly hearing of Argentine competition, and the imminence of still greater rivalry than already exists. It was pointed cut the other day that this must be m«t by lowered pricee, and unless the New Zealand fanner is comnmsated for these by reduced chaj; es, his profit.s will be correspondingly lessened. The rates for freezing and ringing \r-- row lower than they have ever been, but cur

farmers in general, and, as usual, Canter-1 j bury farmers in particular, have etill to b?ar j the burden of excessive railway rates, '.ihe ■ matter is one in which all the Canterbury" , members are strongly interested, and we . hope thai, they will use every effort to help the fivezing companies to secure fairer treatment