ARMOUR AND COMPANY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 273, 12 August 1920, Page 8

ARMOUR AND COMPANY

SHEEIP-TAUMERS FAVOUR LICENSE.

Br Telegraph—Press Associn.«i:u. Christchurch, August 11. jjy a unanimous vote the members of file Canterbury. Sheep-owners' Union at a meeting to-day* decided in favour of a iicenso "Being granted by tho Government to Armour and Co. , ' . I Mr C. H. Elisor,, speaking in regard to meat trusts, said lie considered tho ftttitudo taken up by the union to bQ ti inost reasonable one. The moro competition which could bo got from'tho world's markets, .the better they would get on. There, was no possible chance, So considered,' of a trust getting a. hold in "ew Zealand, because the producers could charter their own ships and export to any market.'® i Mr L. A. Rutherford said he had been criticised by several people regarding the attitude he had taken upon the question of restricted' or open competition. Mi. Lysnar, M.P., Sir Walter Buchanan, and other North Island farmers were the exponents of the restricted market. One of the critics referred to had stated that the petition before Parliament was Armour and Co/s. It .was not, Ho personally took full responsibility for .it, and he> claimed a . legal right to do so. He had received many communications from prominent Canterbury producers, heartily supporting the step taken, and stating that as America would bo a good market next season they failed to seo why tho license should not be granted to Armour and Co. MivMassey had said to him, when questioned at the recent conference, that he had no objection to meat being sent to America, and yet the first of the outside operators who asked for a license was refused, and it so happened that 'the firm Armour and Co. Jlnd it been any other firm, he and the supporters of the petition would have taken up the same attitude. ■ In the petition it was not asked that Armout and Co. should be allowed' to export all the country's meat, but only to get a reasonable share' of it) It was asked that all firms should place a report in the Government's hands of all their dealings during each month. If Armour and Co. were turned down,' then Vestey and Co. would have to be turned down. Neither firm had -proved harmful sofar.

Mr. 11. A. Chaffey proposed that a meeting of all shareholders interested be held to discuss the meat question. This was carried. • Mr. Hav moved:—"That in the opiniorf of this meeting Armour and Co. should be granted a license by the. Government for a neriod of one year." This was carried without a, dissentient voice.