RUBBER RESTRICTION.

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 45, 21 August 1925, Page 9

RUBBER RESTRICTION.

Sir F. A. Swetl'enlmm,'-' presiding at the . meeting of the Anglo;Jlalay Hubber Company in London (of which .Harrison and Ciosfield, Ltd./ are secretaries), said the average all in production. cost of rubber per pound wati'B.7l(l,, an' compared' witlK S.lld last year. I Tho average net price obtained was. l'sd per ■ lb, as against 13id -lost year. . '.'The greatest I rubber-producing countries have been limited for a long,time t,o (iv per cent.' of their ; standard, and for a'short time to only 50 j per cent, of it," said the .chairman. ' "More-' . over, that standard is fixed arbitrarily at a maximum production of 4001b per acre, when those closely connected witli' tile industry 1 know that there are estates which can produce easily 5001b, 0001b, and . even. 7001b per acre, and that is not '"speculation, but:fuct. i It may be said , confidently that .the . ,very. large, majority of tho.se .responsible for the production of British-owned plantation rubber,' not only favour'and support the-restric-tion, scheme, but they believe confidently that . it is, .due mainly to the scheme that the ' price is whutjt is to-day. Not .only, do the "large 'majority of,, planters regard the. scheme favourably, and believe that it has had a ■great. influence in. rescuing the industry from a critical; position, but they" strongly favour its continuance up to and beyond the point when maintenance of the price at not ■ less than Is Cd per pound' will 'release: 100' per cent, pf the standard allowed fur producers. Suggestions—interested, or otherwise—for the abolition of the scheme are not acceptable to rubber growers, and. they' hold' now,"'as they did when the scheme was' introduced, that it, places supply in the hands 'of ruanu-; facturers, who 'had only' to keep the "price at a very modest figure'to have secured as much ' rubber' as they required. If the present price is higher than buyers' care to pay, as it is probably higher than any producer: in December, 1954', thought" likely to be obtainable in May, 1925, that is not. due to any conspiracy, on the part of growers', but it is due to the automatic working of a wellunderstood scheme'; which placed the control -of supply in the hands of the buyers .of - rubber. It is a. fact that purchasers'^! the raw material kept the, price.. so low that, while they "saw the surplus stock 'diminiahins' rapidly, they still forced exports , down till ;tbey "reached only, half the offlciallj calculated standard production."