THE MEAT CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 65, 19 March 1925, Page 6

THE MEAT CHARGES

NECESSITY FOR LEGISLA-

TION

RULING BY CHAIRMAN OF

COMMISSION

The chairman of the Meat Commission 'gave a ruling at this morning's'sitting restricting the right of Mr. W. D. Lysnar, the author of the charges which gave rise to the inquiry, to introduce ■evidence as to the necessity or expedi-ency-of-any proposed legislation, with view to recommendation from the Commission in that direction. Evidence was Adduced on behalf of the Government in respect to- the ' operations of Vestey Brothers.

Resuming his address, Mr. Lysnar put in a number of letters and other documents concerned in the dealings between the National Bank of New Zealand and the Meat Company, in respect to the company's liquidation and the sale of tho ",Xn&t> \VOrl>.s,to\Vest,ey I ,Brothers. .Among •these documents were a number of pamphlets, including ono written by Mr. J-ysnar himself,:..dealing- with the' meat industry in New Zealand.

'.•■Objection was raised to the putting in of certain papers,' and the chairman ■'(Mr.. J." Alexander) announced that he wished to take that opportunity of making clear what .the order.of reference al-lowed.-JTe. dealt in turn with .the several subriiissions made by Mr. Lysnar in regard to the admissibility of evidence, , and drew attention to. the fact that :Mr. Lynsar's third point relating to the ne- , cessity _or expediency' of any proposed legislation was not covered, by the order of reference. -"I-think that will remove any doubt that may exist," said Mr. Alexander, "as to the powers and duties of the Commission." Mr. H. T. Johnston (appearing -with Air. Lynsar): "We suggest that "in most Commissions of this nature the Commissioners''feel'themselves'privileged to suggest a.method of legislation if there has been a public loss resulting from defective _le,yislatfon and not through defective administration. The Commissioners mayfeel it their duty to suggest 'alterations .Jil the legislation >to. protect what they 'find to be the public interest. We do suggest that-this matter r even though it may not bo used, by the Commission, may be put in to enable the Commission to Make recommendations if it so desires." TREATED TENDERLY. I \? lriF\ P\? k*t S:eit ' K-C- (appearing for the Meat"Board): "I don't know wire we have been so tender with Mr. Lysnar I confess he has been treated with more* tenderness by counsel opposed to him tnan x have known to be given to a gentleman who makes so many, so numerous, and such apparently unfounded charges against public officers. If the Commission thinks this matter unwarranted I think he should be over-ruled " - Sir John Findlay, K.C. (appearing for the Government) said he would consider it an impertinence to object to the Commission taking any course it chose, to -take. ■ - - . ■:

4A i le, c, ta'rman said he was glad to find that. Mr. Johnston quite agreed with' the interpretation of the order of referT e;j £ c sHSSested that Mr.' Lysnar should, thereafter confine himself definitely to the matters referred to in the order of reference..

- "Mr. ■"Lysnar T "Do "I understand you will not allow, any evidence at all upon tJie general question?" . The Chairman: "I see nothing justifying us.m spending a lot of time as "if we were a Parliamentary Committee making-a report as to the necessity or expediency of any proposed legislation " -i t \ Jjysnar s'aitJ he agreed with Mr Johnstons view that the order of reference did not specifically direct the Comimssion .in that, natter. His only point was that the -usefulness of the inquiry was restricted. . . '

VESTEY. BROTHERS' OPERATIONS. At this stage Sir John Findlay sought to call a witness subpoenaed by the Commission, who was obliged to return •to Auckland to-night. Mr. Lysner objected to., the departure from the order of procedure, but after consultation with Mr.- Johnston, .agreed,to the witness appearing, ■ ■■ ■ Anthony Rowlands, general manager of several companies in the meat trade in the Auckland district, controlled by Vestey Brothers, cross-examined by Sir John Findley, said that/the companies he' was concerned, .with- were the West-

tield Freezing Co., W. and R. Fletcher and Co., and Nelson Brothers (N.Z.I, Ltd : , ' .. ■" Sir John :. "Are there any interests in New Zealand held by Yestey Brothers, Ltd.?"—"No, none." ■ "The ■ companies now represented are controlled by. Lord Vestey and Sir Edmond Vestey"?—"Yes." ■-X -Witness, further cross-examined \ gave '■.the dates on which the different works were purchased by Vestey Brothers. In ...1920, .when..Vestey Brothers were con- . ternplatin-Tj buying one of Nelson Bro--.;thers'- works,-he-was.'summoned to Wel: ..liugfon by ihe. Minister .of.. Agriculture, "\Vho 'closely;interrogated him for several hours-about the operations -of Vestey '' 8r0f.her5.7. 7','..".'..',' "','."'

'Do Vestey...Brothers' buy live stock

in ..open- competition with others?" — "Yes,'but oritytcTtbo extent necessary

to make,.,an. economic They always gave preference to the private -fanners-/who had..stock .for killing." "Your works are open for the use of all?"—" Yes, they are a public -utility. They are open to all and sundry.. So far as T know we have never had a coni-

plaint, except from Mr. Lysuer, about

anyone nnt being able to get. space." ... ■ ~'A~re--these, .facilities ,largely" used' by the people-.of this country?"—" Yes, both fanners and exporters." \ "Are, any, of the methods mentioned by Mr. ' Ly.4nei'" as• being- followed ■ by Yestey's in New Zealand, actually being followed here?"—" Not in our organisation." --■-■■ " ■ -

The organisation which kept its capital liquid, and used it to buy up the product, said witness, was in a stronger position to be a danger to the public than ,an organisation which invested-its capital for' the "carrying" ori 6f"the business. Where the organisation provided public utilities- there was- no such evil, .vestey's motive had been to provide a • public - utility. , There had .never "been any resistance to the renewal of Yestey Brothers' slaughtering license. "Where does the meat you purchase „..chiefly go. to?"-^"Chie(ly to London for '.the use of the shops-and wholesale de- ■• pot*, and of the British public." There "" .were"4o,(XJQ"iiie;it shops in' Great ■ Bri- '"■' tp.in.- and— Vestey- -Brothers-controlled about 2300 of them. "What was the conditon of the Poverty Bay Farmers' Meat Company's works when -you purchased -them?"— "Disgraceful." The engineers, he, said. :~.' estimated it would be necessary ttrspend ■ £18.000 before -Yestey's could operate "in the works, and a total.". of £28,000 within eighteen months or two year«. NEGOTIATIONS FOR PURCHASE. Further cross-examined, said ' ' that JMessis. Black and Witters, directors of thfi Farmers' Meat Company, approached Yestoy's Gisborne manager and asked-him who w;is the right ; ersou for ..J.hfiru to approach CD-.tho question oi tho • sale of the company's works and of the Admiral Codrington. In those' first negotiations. Mr. Lysiiar named' £650,000 for the purchase "of the works and ths

steamer. Witness considered tho proposition'ridiculous, and replied that in any case it would be useless offering the steamer, which would be of no use whatever. Mr. Lysnar and the directors seemed to l>e in disagreement;in regard to the inclusion of the steamer, and after a discussion they intimated they were willing to accept £500,000 for the works alone. This was so obviously ridiculous that_ witness said it was hopeless discussing the matter. He would not even treat it as an offer. He informed the directors that he was confident that Yestey. Brothers could build similar works for not more than £175,000. Representations were made again by Mr. Lysnar for the sale of the works and the steamer, but he did not reduce his offer reasonably. In May, 1923, Mr. Lysnar saw witness with Sir Edmond Vestey's son, and on Mr. Lysnar's suggestion they went through the Farmers' Company's works, and held a consultation.

Sir John Findlay: "I believe they treated you quite excellently in regard to fluids and solids!"

Witness: "Oh, yes, rather." On that occasion, he continued, the price wa* reduced to' £400,000. Witness told Mr. Lysnar he would not submit a proposal to his principles unless there was a firm offnr for the works atone—not more than £250,000. In June, 1923, at Wellington, Mr. Lysnar reduced tho price for the works to £300,000, and eventually they were bought by Vestey Brothers at public auction for £225,000.

Mr. M. Myers, K.C. : "Did Mr. Lysnar say anything to you to explain the difference between your view and his as to the value pf the works?"—" Yes, he constantly reiterated that tho item of goodwill was ono of considerable value."

Questioned by Mr. Lysnar, witness said that Vestey Brothers used their profits for the purpose of extending their works. ,

Mr. Lysnar: "You declare no dividends, then?"—"lt is not necessary for a private company to declare dividends."

"What do the shareholders get for their interest?"—" Nothing whatever." (Proceeding.)