AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13231, 26 September 1908, Page 10

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.

__ *—- MR C. A. C. HAR_>Y'S ALLEGAGATIONS.

EXPLANATION DEMANDED.

Tho statements recently mado by Mr C. A. C. Hardy, M.P., as to the prices charged by local implement manufac- j turers, formed tho subject of a discus-; sion at tho meeting cf tho Industrial A-scdation lasi nignt. • | Mr W. W. Charters said ho wished to draw attention to a statement re- j eentJy mado by Mr C. A. C. Hardy, M.P., in which he said very clearly and explicitly t'nat the local manufacturers were exploiting the poor fanner. First of all, ho said that " the. farmer was btcng exploited to tho extent of 150 per cent., but afterwards ho reduced; that by 50 per cent. It was tho business of the Association to encourage local industry, and a statement of that sort should not ho allowed to go forth unchallenged. In reply to Mr Hardy's statements in tho House, documentary evidence, was-brought forward by tho manufacturers, and published, which completely disproved Mr Hardy's figures; but in spito of that denial Mr Hardy, at Brooksiide, recently persisted in theso statements, and went further and mado tho assertion that the local manufacturers were charging £30 for a plough which they wero not supposed to ciiargo more than £2-5 10s for, and ho produced an invoice in support of his assertion. What the Association should do would bo to. ask Mr Hardy to produce that invoice, or a copy, so tkau*>it could be seen whether £80 was being charged for a £2-5 10s plough. An ordinary medium throe-furrow ■ plough was catalogued at' £25 10_, . others of a more expensive typo cost • £30 and upwards; but it did not fellow that tho £23 103 plough was being sold for £30. Mr Hardy, therefore, should certainly bo asked to produce the in- . voice, so that the .identity of tho; plough could bo established. Another | mis-statement mado by Mr Hardy was . that tho local manufacturers wero \ charging '• those exorbitant prices because of tho operation of the Implements' Sales and Im- '. portation" Act. Ho (the speaker) j could givo that statement an unquali- i f:e.d denial. That Act had nothing to • do with the local manufacturer, and he j had gained nothing from it at all. Ac- ! cording to that Act, ' three-furrow. plotighs wero scheduled at £2o 10s, and ho wanted Mr Hardy to show that the ; £30 charged was for ono of thoso ordinary three-furrow ploughs. He would move:—"That Mr Hardy bo requested to furnish tho Association with a copy of tho invoice in question, in. order that tho truth of his statements at j Brooksido might bo cleared up." j Tho motion was seconded by Mr Mad- 1 drat. • \ Mr Cooper said that Mr Hardy had mado statements whioh oouiH do no possible good,' but which might do a lot of harm- Seeing that Mr Hardy.was representing a constituency of tho Dominion, ho should realise his rosponsi- i bilitiies before he mado statements elf that sort. If what ho said was truo, it was quite right that- he should say it; but if he was wrong, then ho should either withdraw or givo other peoplo the opportundty of putting the matter right. Personally, ho did not tbinik that Mr Hardy's statements carried much weight. It was quite easy for Mr Hardy to get hold of a cataloguo arid say that a disc harrow in Aus-1 tralia cost £12 10s, and in New Zealand £20, hut ho did not say tihat in New Zealand disc harrows could be bought for £12 Kb also. Mr Hardy said that in Australia- an American machine could be bought for very little money. In America thero was a very high protective tariff, and tho machines wore .manufactured cheaply, and in Australia there was also a h'jgh protect ivo tariff, and the machines wore sold cheaply. Mr Hardy, by his argument, was proving that a protective tariff, in. tho first instance, reduced the cost of an article, and that beihrg go, why did not he advocato a high protective tariff for New Zealand Th en Mr Hardy proved that a country with a hrigh protectivo ta.-iff cou-'d import an. arthlo and -oll.it at a cflieapor rate than in a country without • such a tariff. The whole argument was in favour of the adoption of a lu'tsh protective tariff system here. Mr Hardy, in his public capacity, had shown a bias against an industry which he (tho speaker) thought was not warranted, and ho bad mado statements whrich ho thought could not bo substantiated. He thought that Mr Hardy should withdraw thoso statements, and not, as at Brooksidei, aggravate tjhenr* by giving a selected illustration/ - ; Tho Chairman (Mr F. E. Jones) said he thought Mr Charters deserved the tbaniks'of tho Association for bringing forward that matter. Mr Charters explained that he had not been approached by any implement manufacturer, but 3iad gomo into the matter for himself. Tlio motion was then put and carried. j