FREEZING COMPANY'S DIFFICULTIES

Evening Star, Issue 18399, 6 October 1923, Page 8

FREEZING COMPANY'S DIFFICULTIES

VESTEY PURCHASE PROPOSAL

MEAT BOARD’S CHAIRMAN REPLIES,

IPee United Press Association.]

CHRISTCHURCH, October 5.

Mr David Jones (chairman of tlio Meat Producers’ Board) made the following statement in reply to the directors of the Poverty Bay Meat Company: "The statement ‘that the directors desire to make it perfectly plain that they do not question the hank’s legal right to eel!, nor do they expect or ask the Government or the. Meat Producers’ Board to interfere with that right in the slightest degree,’ is not correct. They ask that my board •should prevent the sale to what is apparently tho only purchaser, and the purchaser that they were previously negotiating with. They further say that the Meat Producers’ Board has specifically declared ‘ that oversea concerns should not acquire any further interests in New Zealand freezing works, or that new works should he erected by any other than New Zealand interests.’ The chairman is a lawyer, and he must know that he is quoting only half tho troth. Our resolution plainly states that the above would not be permitted ‘without the, consent of tho hoard,’ and that proviso was put in because we saw what might happen in Poverty Bay and possibly elsewhere. "Further, the report says ‘the directors arc appalled to realise that the Meat Producers’ Board has been dealing with this matter in the way that is stated by the chairman of the board without making any inquiries from this company or hearing them in any way whatever. Yet the board has not directly or indirectly communicated with this company in the matter.’ This statement, amazes me. The chairman of the Poverty Ray Company has discussed the financial position of their works with, me many times in the last eighteen months, and he, with some of his eo-dircclors, put up certain proposals as to finance. They can tell tho public with whom they wore negotiating. “On September 12 the chairman (Mr Lysnar) waited on me and disclosed tho financial position of his company, the bank’s ultimatum, and Vesley’s oiler.

“Later two of his co-directors came into the office, and Mr .1. S. Jessep also came in. Mr Jessep said I discussed the whole position with them and placed before them the position of the works and the total killings in Poverty Pay, and also informed them that the. board had foreseen what was likely to come, and I could say that we saw no reason why we should interfere, provided Vcsleys closed their oilier works. .At that interview the directors admitted they tried to sell to Testers last season, and the terms wore stated. The chairman also stated (hem at the Gisborne meeting on October 2. They were prepared to sell to Testers on certain terms. If Tcsteys had purchased they would have closed, (heir other works, and there would have been only two works operating in Poverty Bay. Therefore if in the opinion of the Poverty Bay Freezing Company’s directors two works wore sufficient lost February, can they ask rny hoard now to say that two works are insufficient? 'This is not a matter for a. battle of words. The Meat Board’s sympathies are entirely with the Poverty Bay works. Our insistence in maintaining and seeming that their ship should bo included in last season’s freight contract rendered (hem valuable assistance, which they acknowledged. If the district is behind the directors they have still an opportunity to raise the capital and reconstruct their company. It is not the time for flag waving, but for prompt and decisive action.’’