THE HARVESTER TRUST.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 62, 11 September 1905, Page 5

THE HARVESTER TRUST.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. A Christchurch Press reporter has been making enquiries concerning the peril of the American Harvester Trust invasion. Amongst others interviewed was Mr. Bywater, the Christchurch representative of the Trust, who putj forward what, may be considered the case for the defence. Reference was made to the statement to the Premier by Mr. G. M. Hall (as reported in the Post last week) to the eflect that "the Harvester Trust had already put a price on binder twine which made his firm decide to stand down on twine this year," and that "this twine was actually made up from fibre sent from New Zealand, and made up in America." Mr. Bywater said that the Trust had never imported a pound of twine into New Zealand. Last season they bought £52,000 worth of fibre, and sent it to America and Australia to be made up and sold there. This season they had engaged to buy and export £70,000 worth of fibre from New Zealand. With regard to the statement quoted by Mr. Hall, of a witness before the Tariff Commission, that an agent of the Trust had said he would knock out all tho local men, as the Trust had unlimited capital, and was prepared to lose for three years if necessary, Mr. Bywater said that this was probably the statement of an expert who had had more liquor than was good for him. Such a statement was never made in Australia^ by any responsible man, and there was absolutely no truth in il?. The real reason of the amalgamation was a desire to reduce the cost of management. They ' handled the Osborne, the Deering, the M'Cormick, the Piano, and the Champion binders. Each of these .before the anplgairation had separate managers, office staff, etc. Now lie managed the whole in one office and with one staff, thus eifecting a great saving in the cost of management, and enabling them to sell the machines cheaper to the farmer than was the case before. Instead of wishing to squeeze out the local' men, the Trust had shown a desire to do what they could to encourage them by giving orders for the manufacture of certain machines locally. But they were unable to get them turned out expeditiously, and further than this, several were sent back by farmers as being faulty in construction. For example, they had placed the manufacture of twenty-five rape and turnip sowers with one local firm. The- order was sent on 28th July, and they had received five on 2nd .August, two on 23rd August, two on 6th September, and two on Bth September. As he said, the local workmanship in many cases was also faulty, so that in future, though willing to give every encouragement to local makers, the Trust would have to get their sowers, for example, made in Australia cr America. The main argument which was Leld up by Mr. Hall as a bogie to the farmer was that the Harvester Trust wanted to get the monopoly of machines, and then raise the price. Weil, he might Kiy emphatically that they had no intention of, doing so. They felt that when they got properly established here, and were in full working order, they could sell the machines ohmi-ey than they were doing now, and tho farmer would reap the benefit. An interesting fact was elicited by the Press reporter in the course of an interview with Mr. Hall. "Much has been made," he said, "of the so-called natural protection which we have against nuittilecturers in America, owing to freights. But that is a pure myth. With the facilitiss they possess for freighting in America, a drill can be sent Irom New York at present quotations to any one of vhs four centres of the colony for £2, whereas it costs us £4 to send a drill from Lyttelton to New Plymouth. So much for natural protection."