WOOL AND MEAT PURCHASE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16308, 4 September 1918, Page 9

WOOL AND MEAT PURCHASE.

10 THE EDITOR OF "TUB PEESS." Sir, —In your leader of to-day you refer to a statement made by mo at tho Farmers' Union executive on Wednesday. You say: "It is stated that 0,000.000 pounds of wool are released monthly to British manufacturers for civilian and export purposes. Mr Lysnar says, and Mr Jones no doubt agrees with him, that out of this amount New Zealand's quota would be 4,000,0001b. There is not the slightest ground for assuming any such thing." Then later you refer to my remarks as "clap-trap." Now, can there be any worse ''claptrap" or unfair tactics than the above? You drag in Mr Lysnars statement, couple my name with it, and then proceed to publicly whip mo for having said it. It serves to illustrate effectively the weakness of your argument. You refer to my statement that the "manufacturer at Home is farming our patriotism" as clap-trap, and say further "that the manufacturers are not getting New Zealand or any other wool at a comparatively low price." Tho two Ministers who attended the Farmers' Union Conference could give us no facts. .They did not know what tvas being done with the wool, nor whether the Imperial authorities were carrying out their contract, but they cabled the Prime Minister for information. That information is to hand, and I have it before me. It says, "When our wool becomes Imperial wool its value to the Imperial authorities is practically what" it costs them from here. J3ut there is in force what is called the Boston schedule, which is _ tho highest of all, and the Bradford price, which is now taken as the value of our wool, is to bo raised to the Boston schedule, bccause the wool now going out for civilian use is not getting its proper value." I think," says Mr Guthrie, "that strikes the nail on the head." There, sir, you havo the proof of the accuracy of my statement, and the inaccuracy of yours, and also the evidence that our action has already had beneficial results. You sinned in ignorance, but I am sure you are not among those who think "AVhere ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise." So it affords me pleasure to enlighten you. My chief, ground of objection has been to the methods employed by tho in charge. When the commandeering of wool and meat was first before the Government, they nominated (at the suggestion of the Canterbury branch of the Farmers' Union) a body of producers representative of the Dominion. This body was called together on two occasions, when the contract for New Zealand wool was being considered. The Imperial Government proposals were placed before them, the whole question was thoroughly discussed, and counter proposals put forward. These wero submitted to the Impel lal Government. The Conference met again somo days later, and the contract was entered into. The same body was also called together to discuss and arrange tho terms, of the meat contract, and again when the second meat contract was agreed upon, and although you say "what they charge for the manufactured article is a matter in which New Zealand cannot interfere, wo demanded that the profiteering in meat should be stopped, and the retail price fixed in Britain, so that the consumer got the benefit, a.nd important alterations were -made in that direction. , , , When the proposal for a new wool contract was before the Government they should have placed the wholo oi the proposals before this Conference) and the members would have frceJy discussed, in private, matters for and against, and the wholo thing would have been satisfactorily arranged. But instead of that it was simply, thrown down to the public, no information was available, and the result is confusion and recrimination; and it is quite clear that in a good many quarters the wool contract is now a secondary consideration to party factions. The same thing has occurrred in connexion with tho proposed meat extension contract. I should not be surprised if, after the wool and meat contracts are.fixed, tne conference -of producers is called together to confirm the action of government, and thus relieve them of responsibility.—Yours, JONBS - Dunsandel, August 30th. nVe are uhable to accept Mr Jones's information as enlightening what he terms as our ignorance. we tried to show that there was no proof that New Zealand wool* was "oing out for civilian purposes in ' England. Mr Jones has not attempted to correct us on that point. The putting into force of the "Boston schedule does not ' mean that it is to apply to New Zealand wool only, nor does its operation imply any inaccuracy in what we have said. There is little analo'gy between the wool and the meat trades. Before it can be proved that there is profiteering in New Zealand wool in England, it has to be proved that our wool is being used for civiHan purposes, and then tho figures as to cost and profit must be properly shown. In the case of meat the figures were available.—Editor "Tho Press. .]