STOCK EXCHANGES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18410, 17 May 1920, Page 9

STOCK EXCHANGES.

LONDON. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, May 11. Quotations aro:-Waihi, buyers SSs 9:1 fellers 41s 3d.

MR HUGHES’S SCHEME. Bv Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, May 14. Tho British Wool Federation is calling a conference of importers of .wool bakers and others concerned to consider Mr \ • • Jlughos’s scheme, with a view to protecting lho interests of Yorkshire. Tho “ Yorkshire Observer says that tho suspension of sales, as proposed, ■would disoTganise the wool trade an herely involvo it in a repc.ition. «> the phase of artificial values wh ch it already had experienced. A reasonab.o resumption is that an artificial, scarcity would create another period of soaring values and feverish speculation, and the trade would have to face a reaction later. M Hughes’s suggestion is undoubtedly well meant, but the Bradford traders are forced \o concludo that ho docs not realise how sensitive tho wool trade is or how useless 'it is for any country, or body of peoples to attempt to institute a fictitious state of valueß in a branch of industry subject Jo world-wide influence. , LONDON, May 15. Sir Arthur Goldfinch (chairman of the Wool . Committee), interviewed by the “ lorksluro 'Post ’’ said the principal objections to Mr Huriics’s wool scheme from the users’ point of view would bo that supplies would bo totally interrupted from October to December, when it was essential for the trade that 200,000 bales should arrive monthly. Three Hank months would bring to a standstill a .■number of mills, especially in Fiance end Belgium. It was necessary for the trade -that Government wool should be Bold right up to the end of Deoember, and it would bo highly inconvenient if there were no sales Imre. Ho doubted if it would be practicable. Mr Hughes would, no doubt, bo able, to arrange a reasonable division of shipping heowners of tJio cliti xuicl of linpciif*. wool. It wqb never tho Wool Council’s intention to ignore the interests of growers in respect ox tho new clip. ’Tho “Yorkshire Observer” states that it is probable not much more will bo .heard of Mr Hughes’s wool scheme. Inquiries show that the authorities in London do not regard it seriously. They ought to have littlo d’fiiculty in convincing Mr Hughes that there is nothing to bo said in favour of tho proposal. The opinion is growing here that tho scheme is duo to Mr Hughes being obliged to show his willingness to exert himself in tho interest of Commonwealth growers. This is perfectly legitimate, but if tho inference is correct tho proposal need not be considered alarming. , “ The Times” Trade Supplement says there is a suspicion that Mr Hughes’s interference is prompted by a desire to nationalise Australia’s wool trade and wool and textile industries