ARMOUR & CO.’S LICENSE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 306, 20 September 1921, Page 3

ARMOUR & CO.’S LICENSE

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your leading article of September 13 has just been called to my notice, end I read that on his return from Australia Mr. A. D. M'Leod, M.P., is astonished to find the farmers of New Zealand are decidedly more sympathetic towards Armour and Company of Australasia obtaining a license than they were this time last year. Had Mr. M'Leod kept abreast of popular (pinion he would have realised that the New Zealand farmer to-day is less impressed with the deliberate misstatements of our opponents, for tho reason that so many of our detractors’ prophecies have not materialised on the many matters which the fanner is interested in. Mr. M'Leod is anxious to bring the taihoa policy into this matter of a license, and urges farmers to refrain from signing the petition (until Mr. Massey’s return, but it is difficult to understand how the interests of the farmer are going to be served by asking him to sit on a rail, when Mr. Massey distinctly told a representative of Armour and Company of Australasia that if the farmers of New Zealand wanted them to operate in this Dominion, he would be the last man to stand in. the way of them doing so. We do not like getting up petitions any more than Mr. M'Leod evidently likes to see us doing so, and we would be more than willing to adopt any other method that could be. recommended as practical, and would ask Mr. M'Leod to toll us in what other way we could obtain tho necessary weight of evidence a? to the wishes of the farmer. Last year a petition in our favour was put before Parliament, and I undorI stand the promoters of this were told that it need not be a large one so Irng as it contained sufficient names to ho put before Parliament, with the consequence that it was derided by a largo number of members of Parliament on account of it not being ropresentatiyo. From the efforts now being put forward we shall be able to show a petition the size -and weight of which cannot be lightly regarded. , and should any further action of a Jilje nature become necessary, the evidence in bur favour will) be still stronger. The'longer this matter is put off the more producers realise the necessity of admitting Ar■ftiour and Company of Australasia into this Dominion on competitive terms with others already in the same trade, and even if the present petition should fail, it is only delaying the time when the Government themselves will -ealise that there i« no policy eo honest and no means of securing the best results ft>r the community so sure as that of the "open-door" rrolicv.—l am, etc., W. IRVING CARNEY. Managing Director for Armour and Company of Australasia, Ltd. September 15. _____ I