The Flour Case

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 278, 4 November 1924, Page 5

The Flour Case

Distributors Ld. Prosecuted EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. THE 1923 AGREEMENT. (Per Press Association.) Dunedin, Nov. 3. In the flourmilling- case, giving evidence fur tne defence, John Heaton Darker (Aucklanu), secretary oi tne iNew Zealand Master bakers Association lor tne past lour years auu editor oi tne “Bakers’ Review," said it was hit duty to keep in touch with tne aourmniing industry. He went lo Uhristcnurch in 1922 in connection w‘th me loriuauon of Distributors' Ltd- He was in Kaikoura in May of that year, when he learned oi the cut in me price ot ho ar. He immediately proceeded to Christchurch and learned that a number of New Zealand bakers were ou their way to Christchurch. In his official capacity he interviewed the millers, pointing out that the cutr.ihg in the price of flour would result iu cutting in the price of bread, and that would result in a dislocation in the industry throughout New Zealand. It was a matter of importance to bakers that they be charged a uniform price for flour to prevent cutting in the price of bread. Prior to 1922 bakers had had difficulty in getting the brands of flour they desired. He had been enabled while in Christchurch, as a result of his negotiations with Distributors, to secure a larger supply of northern manufactured flour for Southland bakers. George W. Leadley, farmer, Ashburton, said he had grown wheat for some years. He had been president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, and in 1923 was closely associated ’with wheatgrowers. He was chairman of the Wheat Board set up by agreement between the millers ana the wheatgrowers. If the wheat agreement of 1923 had not been brought about the effect would have been a collapse of the wheat market and the great majority of the farmers would nave had to abandon wheatgrowing and go in for some other farming activity. His executive empowered him to call a conference of Canterbury provincial executives with representatives of Distributors’ Ltd. and merchants and growers. Mr McDonald, representing Distributors, was notified and he attended. An agreement was arrived at and the wheat crop of 1923 was dealt with under it. But for the central medium of Distributors’ Dtd. tne agreement could not have been brought about. William Walter Mulholland, farmer, at Darfield, Canterbury, vice-chairman of the Wheat Board, substantially agreed with what the previous witness had said in regard to the wheat agreement. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow. MR. MCDONALD’S EVIDENCEDunedin, Nov. 4. At the hearing of the flour-milling case, William George McDonald said that he was the wheat controller under the Government from January Ist., 1918, to October 30th., 1922. He had been chairman of the Board of Trade from March, 1916. and was still chair man while acting as wheat controller, in October, 1922, he became managing director of Distributors’ Ltd., holding office till October last. In his opinion the Government wheat control saveo the industry from destruction- The control was established to deal with actual shortages. At some stages it was necessary to establish the control system. In 1922 millers indulged u. liberal purchases, thinking they xx>uls increase their buinesses, forgetful that they could not permanently increase dour consumption by thig method.