THE OUTLOOK FOR THE FARMER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 300, 13 September 1921, Page 6

THE OUTLOOK FOR THE FARMER

MEAT PRICES AND FREEZING , COMPANIES. Sir —Since my return from Australia I am constantly being asked the question by farmers, Should I sign the Armour petition ? Asked if they think the admission of Armours will improve matters, generally brings tho reply that Armours cannot possibly lie worse than, our present companies, although •mate result might be dangerous. Farmers in scores say that if present rumours bo true then bankruptcy will soon bo upon them. • There is undoubtedly h. widespread soreness amongst farmers with our meat freezing companies, which if not checked or explained will with certainty end in the admission of Armours. Statements are beng made, originating I am not prepared to say where, which are influencing farmers in all directions. these statements have perhaps a grain of .truth in them, and, like all half truths, are most dangerous. If it is intended to keep Armours out, an early and clear statement of the position is required of our meat companies. The following is what I hear on every hand: — That last season the companies opened prices at a high level so that their large friends might benefit, while at the end of the season when lifting small farmers stock prices were unduly lowered, to recoup companies against early losses. Another statement is that companies are now offering a low figure for meat, so that the new season’s prices can begin on a low basis. It is stated that Wellington companies, which were giving fourpence for wether mutton in July and August, have now reduced the figure to a little over threepence, although tallow and wool have gone up. Again, it is Ibeing said that a gentleman closely in touch with a Wellington company has given out as hl s opinion that the new season will see lamb ar about fivepencc, and wether mutton pence. From my own knowledge I know that doleful mutterings are emanating from freezing company „ say the least, is getting the wind well un” Btrujnrling farmers. On the other hand, Armours canvassers are saying that should present London prices hold, the company will g ve ninepence for lamb and Bixpenc® for muttoifr Although there is an if in tno statement, it is having its effect I voted against Armours in 192 , cause I have always been against trusts and because the close association of Armours with the "Big Five led me to believe they were dangerous. While> Arm ours have attempted to lugs of the Federal inquiry, they mak® no reference to the evidence taken before the United States Senate, or a comX Of that body. The. evidence is all on record, including that of J. Ogd n Armour, and it makes . sweet reading. The result of quiry was tfle bringing down of legist tion calling upon the Big Five> nose of their interests m stockyards, meat vans and other necessary adjuncts to free buying aad , B . elllnK ’ dence proved were being used to crush out competition or opposition. In conclusion, I would earnestly ask farmers to refrain from signing the * petition at least until the return of our Prime Minister. No man has endeav mired to do more for the farmers tkan Mr. Massey. He welt knows that on the nrosnerity of the farmers depends the prosperity* of the whole population. He may have some further light to thr °'T°’? this difficult question, and I trust that his already difficult position will not be made more difficult by the w h ° l< * a ’® signing of a petition which I feel sure is only half understood by many signing I - hold no brief for the freezing companies, as my shares are almost nil in any of them. I do, however, consider it my duty to hold a brief for the farmers of this and other electorates, and I would be sorrv, because of to-day’s pressing needs, they should do something which their children would have cause to regret. I am, p m «i,eoD, M.P. Martinborough, September 12.