FARMERS & WAR PRICES

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2641, 11 December 1915, Page 12

FARMERS & WAR PRICES

FURTHER'CORRESPONDENCE

Wo two more letters on the subject ot farmers arid war prices. JBoth' are very lengthy, and we can only 'publish a summary of each, with which i'or tho! present we must close this correspondence. "Justice" writes in support of Mr. Hawken's contentions and criticises "Fair. ; Plays" letter, published in our •issue <jf Novembor 24. > "I am surprised," ho writes, "to read ■'Fair-Play's' letter, because if tlvis gentleman /'likes fair play he should give Mr. .'Oswald Kawken's letter fair play and |let Mr. Massey or the Government answer'tho farmers' resolution which Mr. r Oswald Hawken published in the end of [his letter in your November 9 issue, and Xiot take to Jiimself tho Government's [duty.:; I admire tho generous way ' in which 1 ; Mr. Oswald Hawken says 'the farmer is satisfied with the price if the conjeumbr. in the Old Country gets the bene'fit/ and I agree that ho is entitled to his comment on the, 40 per cent, increase in freight (admitted by Massey to the deputation at Palinerston North). Vtnd toeieby tryjand protect his-own in-, .jteresia. I think, he should, go further fand .'ask why tlie Government did not 'commandeer "all space on steamers in question, at a fixed rate for a period that itne Government intended commandeering mea.t;'in order to enable the Government to pay more for .the meat by limiting "their-freight oharges. 'Fair Play' is evidently,defending tho Government's . action. -in whioh the Government ignored Mr. Hawken's and his friends' resolution in'the first case, and secondly what seems of more vital importance to 'Fair Play/ 'the shipping interests. If 'Fair Play' jwould ask the Government to comman/deer /all steamers at a fixed tate of (freight for the same periods as the meat (contracts to prerent unlimited freight Wliarges, then it would be .fair play to [the,.farmer seeing the farmer's meat is commandeered: at a fixed" price for months .-•at a: time. , . . 'I hope the shipping

interests am not too powerful for the ■Government to control, as tliey have proved to be too powerful pnd clever for certain farmers','. organisation. If thev 'are, let the matter bo looked, into by the Board of Trade about to .be est up in New because from my own expsHenco the greatest drawback to New •Zealand in peace-time is that there are contracts made between the shipping companies; and farmers' representatives which* jtovo, been so worded as to give certain 'Shipping companies a powerful lever to eliminate the competition of aspiring oompanies who might think of competing for the Dominion trade. ... . It is ab-, surd to say. that commandeering meat at a fiied price ensures the shipping, because 11 the . Imperial authorities control the'shipping, and the chief Tea6on for this roommandearing of ships by the Im-. perial ; authorities 13 to enable them to carry. .troops. New Zealand's produce would probably 'have been .neglected but for Mr. Massey's timely' action in', nsk.lpg.the Imperial authorities not to take Tefrigeratar ships about twelve months ago.; ';'; ... In conclusion, 'Fair Play' snows -himself grossly unfair ■ by criticising' Mr. Oswald Hawken's concern about the price the public pay when he says, -'I BUggesfc that he (Mr. Hawken) takes steps to .relieve the public here of the addi-tional-charges that are placed upon meat, butter,', cheese, wool,, etc., to bring them Sntor-lme with the London rates.' let me-make the position more clear. The farmers 6ay they have lost over one million "sterling. ' I am 'not connected in any way/with the meat'trade, but have heard one of the leading and most fair men in the'meat trade oonfirm the aboTe statements Mr. l Bawken generously says he does'.'not mind this so- long as the British;.public gets the benefit, and not the insurance and shipping companies. 'Fair Play': .thinks because he is chairman of a committee that he is entitled to overlook thi9; most generous statement and turn earoastic, and ask Mr. Hawken why he does not get his friends to relieve the public here of the additional oharges upon meat, butter, wool, eto. The simple audacity of Tail' Play" stands out, clearly, seeipg.' that butter and cheese are cheaper here,- and at the recent wool sales the auctioneer gave New Zealand mills the preferenoe of any lots at the price others were offering. I expect he is just as in-

accurate about meat. In any case, _ if 'Fair Play' will inquire from tho right source he will find out that tho New Zealand grocer has been buying-his-but- ' ter at >.ld. to 2d. per lb. less than the groccrs in. Great Britain, also the British public have been paying higher prices for the same quality of butter than the public of this -.Dominion, despite tho fact that the New Zealand public buy nearly all best quality in pats, and delivered on ' crcdit in the most expensive way, as compared with tho English housewife buying Jin bulk, also buying cheaper butter and margaritie to defeat and brin«: tho best butter .prices down. . . . The world's markets liave placed a.'value on New Zealand products, upon which New Zealand has been made prosperous; and which no Government has a light to interfere with, as it is the only honest way of paying tho farmer for his* hard toil. The chief Teason for high prices for agricultural products is that m'en like 'Fair Play' and myself love the town: life too well to i>ut ilip with the country." Jn. Answer to Mr. Hawken. "Fair Piny"- replies to Mr. Hawken's letter of December 2, sigiied is ''Chairman, North Island Farmers' Committee": "So deliriously- vague'; insinuating so mncli and implying so little! Will Mr; Hawken," he asks, "kindly explain where and how tho 'committee' was appointed; by whom,; and what-are its express func-. tions ? Possibly lie xefers to the 'committee' -that waited upon Mr. Massey at Palmerston North on November i. If so, then surely we have all tho elements of another delightful comedy opening up before us on the lines of the "Three Tailors of Tooley Street,' of sublimely l'idicuilous memory. Why, sir, you probably know, as well a 9 I do, that 'the committee of farmers who met tho Prime Minister' (tho quotation is from Mr. ' Oswald Hawken's letter of November 8), consisted of three gentlemen—Mi\ W. D. Lysnar, of Gisborne (who has, I understand, been opposed to the Government meat purchase scheme all along); Mr. Oswald Hawken himself (on his own admission, vide the. letter of November, a, buyer of fat stock for a freezing company), and a grazier who runs at ler-1 two butchering establishments in the Waikato, and; has a snug little farm at Tau--piri. I am told that tho latter (who with his usual good nature- probably allowed- himself to be 'roped in' at the last moment) was tho most surprised- and bewildered member of the deputation or 'comniitteo' (as Mr. Hawken puts it), and that, like Mr. Massey himself, ho had considerable difficulty ia following Mr. Hawken's line of argumeut-ror may I 6ay the lack of.it?. "Certainly from the correspondence that has already taken place on tho subject the fact has now been established that, beneath their professed, concern for tho unfortunate Home'consumer, who is paying so much more for his meat as the outcome of the war and the increased charges on . shipping, insurance, and handling of produce cargoes eto,, ' Mr. Hawken s 'committee', has endeavoured to conceal'uts more selfish, feeling, that too big an inroad is being made-into their profits by the shipping and insurance companies and the. Imperial authorities, who are taking all the risks of an increasingly dangerous business, upon which enemy submarines have waged their cowardly warfare with a certain amount of success—at least threo New Zealand vessels and their cargoes having fallen victims ' to their 'dastardly enterprise, In reminding Mr. Hawken of facta euoh as these (which do not appear to have entered his mind whin he Tailed at the Prime Ministor for "'keeping down the price of meat,' at the shipping companies for increasing their freights, and at the Port , of London Authority, etc.—vide his letter of November 8), I neither championed nor apologised for the 'speculators' and "big concerns,' as he now insinuates I am doing. On the. contrary, I expressly dfsclaimed any desire to justify tho shipping or insurance companiqr in the position they have taken up. But, common- sense demands the recognition of the principle that, with increased risks, thlei companies must increase their charges,; and. that, if,' increased profits are made, those' 4 accepting the risks should fore at least as well as the farmer who is relieved from them. After all, it is the British Government who accent the responsibility of the business, and it is due to their action alone that the business is maintained on such a profitable basis for the New Zealand fanner. "Mr. Hawken's references to the American meat trusts simply beg the question

at issue. If the Imperial authorities were to cancel the arrangement they have made, through the New Zealand Government, with the farmers of this Dominion, the latter would be left absolutely at the ,mercy of the trusts. The meat purchase scheme actually defeated tho designs of the trusts, who were already operating in this country through their a°ents prior to the war; and I imagine ° Mr. Hawken knows, better than I do, the way tn which the American buyers were tying up some, at least, of the graziers of this Dominion prior to tho war. ... So far from being 'tied up' in my calculations, 1 nnd on revising them iu the light of ,Mr. Hawken's last letter that if 1 have erred at all it is in overestimating tho amount of the increased charges of which Mr. Hawken complains. The revision makes the case all the mora difficult for ti I -Hairkoji. It had escaped my liotico that -Mr. Massey, at Paimerston North, had given the former cost of marketing New Zealand moat as three halfpence per lb. Working it out in my own way I placed it at from ljd, to per lb. (as against Air. Hawken's al>surcl underestimate of Id.); and accepted Mr. Massoy s further estimate that the charges now equalled '2 l-9d. per lb. landed m London.- Quoting from the bmithneld market quotations, as cabled from -London on November 6, r showed that the selling prices were in tjie averago .a lartlnng per lb. moro thaii the values ex ship, this difference representing the average cost in expense of handling, conveyance, and it fr Accepting this, I added on Mr. Massey's 2 l-9d., and thus brought the charges up to making tho apparent increase from lid. to lid. per lb. ■But Mr. Massey's statement is that the cost prior to tho war was l}d., and, as • , i a f T® officlal information, I have a ! TI& » 0 upon his figures. These, | therefore, indicate that the increase has | been, not lid. or 1 id., but id. per lb. On i this basis, therefore, Mr. Hawken's esti-mate-of the increased charges, amounting to-a million and a half/is reducible py at least one-half, while the percentage increases he quotes from the 'Trade Review eho.iv tnat the farmers have benefited by at least <£1,220,000 on their meat sales; and, on the pre-war payments, they are better off by over two millions sterling, as con bo easily demonstrated from the official records, and this for the nine months only that tho schemo liaß been m operation. Why, then, <J1 this pother?

"The point I wish to emphasise in closing is This. The Imperial authorities, in conjunction with our own Government, are responsible for an arrangement under which the former accept all the risks of the meat exporting business, while the farmer receives what is practically 'cash on the nail' for his produce, and hasn't to worry himself whether the meat ho sells to the Government reaches its destination or not. Under the old system, ho would have paid the freights, insurances, and other charges had he exported on his own acconnt. These charges are -now paid by the Imperial authorities; and, if they-do make a-littlo profit out of- tho business (although it is denied that they do), is Mr. Hawken unpatriotic enough to say t.liat- v they should not do so; when, in. connection with their war risks insurance scheme, they are incurring heavy losses in other directions? And, in tho alternative, will Mr. Hawken undertake the responsibility of advising his fellow-graziers (I assume thaf he is a grazier) to abandon a scheme that is simply filling their pockets with 'war profits'? If he is prepared to do that I am satisfied that nine-tenths 'of his fellow-grazier's will regard him as manifestly unfit to act as the 'chairman' of any farmers' committee, and will even question his capacity to speak on behalf of a committee of three." [This correspondence is now closed.]