WOOL COMMANDEER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 4952, 20 August 1918, Page 7

WOOL COMMANDEER.

(To the Editor.! Sir, —In your issue of the 14th instant you published a letter signed by a number of sheepfarmers in connection with the wool commandeer question. I am credibly informed that Mr. J. B. Kells has been going round urging farmers to sign tins letter, and largely using the statements made by Mr. Walter Hill to one of the southern papers favoring the extension of the commandeer. 1 am rather surprised ro hear that Mr Kglis should have used Mr. Hill's remarks in the manner he has, fd.v instead of them being an argument for. the extension of the commandeer tlie.> are, if impartially ueed, in m.v judgment, the strongest reasons for opposing any extension of the wool contract. As 1 have dealt with this question by a letter to tome of the southern papers, I will be glad if, for the information of your readers, you will publish same, copy of which I attach. I cannot help feeling somewhat amused at both Mr Kells' and Mr. Hill's conster” itmn m this matter.—Yours faithfully, W. DOUGLAS LYSNAR,

The following is a copy of the letter which Mr. Lysnar has sent to the southern journals : In a recent issue of your journal you republish a statement of Mr. Walter Hill (Chief Government Wool Valuator) in the above matter, and also an extract from an article in the Christchurch Press criticising some of my figures. Regarding Mr. Hill’s statement there are several matters I would like to draw special attention to.

He says in the first place—' Air. Lysnar is wrong in iiis statement that at present Home manufacturers are - getting wool practically at cost. 1 ' In making this statement I did so in view of the admission of the Director of Raw Materials. War Office, London, in which he ack lowledoed they ivere selling the wool at practically cost price, also the fact that The Statist for May last states that “Wool, Lincoln half-lioggets was sold in May lash at Is 6d per lh, nominated.” On this basis it should be noted that the wool would he selling at an actual loss. The Government is paying to the farmers Is 2jd on the average, and it is costing them 3-id plus 10 per cent, for freight, and this would make the cost more than Is 6cl per lb. On this basis the Imperial authorities would be losing all the charges at this end, including storage, interest and charges at the other end. It is very significant to notice that according to The Statist the same class of wool was being sold at 2s Id per lh in May, 1917, so apparently manufacturers are getting some of our best classes of wool for 7d per lb less than they were last year, while the cost of the manufactured article for civilian requirements had in the meantime very largely increased. In addition. we have the fact that _al though we made our first deal with the wool in 1916, we have not been informed of any surplus or received any allowance for- same. I suggest the data T have quoted is more reliable on this head than Mr. Hill’s : bald statement. Mr. Hill goes on to say there are no wool merchants in business in England to-day on their own account and as an instance he refers to his own firm, which had a turnover of over £2,000,000 per annum up to 1916 hut they do not hold any stocks. I do not question the fact that wool merchants pure and simple are seriously affected by the commandeer, although it is a little difficult to understand Mr. Hill’s attitude in desiring the extension of the contract if his firm is so seriously affected ns he suggests. However that may be, the manufacturers of tops and yarn and cloth are not out of business but very much in business, and my whole point was that the manufacturers were getting wool at practically cost price for civil purposes and were charging the public exorbitant prices. Now, Mr. Hill apparently frankly acknowledges this phase when he says, “There is a certain amount of w'ool and yarn released for civil purposes, which, after manufacture, is put on the market at such a price as the manufacturer can get for it, whether the profit is large or small.” This is a direct acknowledgment of the very statement I have been making, and in this Mr Hill acknowledges the whole of my case, for, why should the New Zealanders sell their wool at-Is 2fd to find its way into the manufacturers’ hands, and allow them to charge (as Mr. Hill acknowledges) whatever they can , get for it “whether the profit is large or small”? In my previous letter a few days back I dealt with this phase specially, being unaware of .Mr. Hill’s statement at that time. Sir. Hill also refers to the position in South Africa, and says that owing to the owners of wool not having sold to the Imperial authorities _they cannot now sell their wool at 25 per cent, discount for want of shipping. Mr. Hill is entirely under a misapprehension here. I would refer you to a return on 'Foreign Trade and Commerce made to the House of Commons, and dated 20th February, | 1918, which discloses the following ; facts, that for evelen months exports of wool, the South Africans got £4,226,000 more in 1917 than they did for the whole of the clip in 1915 for 28,000,000 less of wool. Tins result, I suggest, in no way justifies any suggestion that South Africa has been inconvenienced in any way, at least from a financial standpoint. On the contrary the South Africans, through keeping an open trade for their wool, have made a huge financial gain for their last year’s wooh with a considerably reduced output. Then, dealing with the criticism upon some of my figures., as published by the Christchurch Press, I may say I have written explaining to the editor of that paper- that the error was simply a mistake, owing to printer's contraction in the pamphlet quoted. lam pleased, however, to state that the monetary result is in no way affected, and the amount of 4s 3d per lb for greasy wool is absolutely correct. The figures and notes I quoted from show greasy wool for 70’s would he worth 5s 2d, and for 58’s 4s 3d, and it was the latter I based my argument upon. The figures Quoted by roe showing a profit of. 2s 7d per lb between the Is 8d actually paid by the top-maker, and its full value based upon the regulated price of tops, of which the grower was entitled to half, and the. Imperial authorities to . the othei half. After all, Mr. Editor, to the lay mind the money quotations I gave were the main point and are correct, hut to the ordinary lay mind the difference between tops misquoted in the pamphlet would be Greek to them. I am pleased to be able to state that the position was in no way misquoted to the Conference; it was / simply confined to the pamphlet. I J am, etc., ! W. DOUGLAS LYSNAR.