TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2674, 14 June 1905, Page 23

TO THE EDITOR.

Sic, — Mr J. R. Scott, in answer to my letter on the above subject, says: "Lest any dairy farmer should be misled by Mr Bolt's letter " Let me say I don't want to mislead the dairy farmer. I want him to think, and I want him to dema-nd a fair rate of freight for his produce. Unless it can bo shown to the contrary, I think it a fair proposition that butter should not pay . a higher rate than meat. The quantity of butter carried this past season is stated to be 342,853cwt, or, in other words, 17,142 tons. Now, take this overcharge of id a pound, allow for the 3 per cent, discount, and you will have the nice little sum of £44,341 more than would be charged for meat, although it would only take up half the space. Will anyone attempt to say this is fair? I will wait for the shipping companies or Mr Scott to justify these charges. I would like to say a word or two on your leading artioles on this subject, dates June 8 and 9. The article of June 8 appears to me to be an impartial criticism of j the position j that of June 9 entirely in the interest of the shipping companies, filled in with sneering remarks about the Government. However, the Government is quite able to look after itself. I would respectfully ask you to reprint portion of the article of June 8. as it is important to Otago, as follows: — "'There can be little doubt that the practical monopoly enjoyed by the direct snipping companies has prejudicially affected the dairy farmer by mulcting him in far larger sums for freight bills than the magnitude of the traffic justifies, and that it is by competition alone that the freights on produce are ultimately reduced." Continuing on this subject, you say : "Of course, there Is the usual clause in the agreement that, in the event of lower freights being offered from other quarters and the shipping companies refusing to grant lower rates, the contract may be cancelled ; but the knowledge of a contract extending to 1912 will deter competitors from entering the field. That there is need of competition there is no manner of doubt. Otago apparently will never get her rights under the present regime. We have over and over again pointed out the injustice of a system which prohibits the direct steamers from making Dunedin one of the ports of call in the colony." These are wise words, and should be carefully read and remembered. The article of June 9 is written in the interest of the shipping company, and an attempt is made to show how generously the shipping companies propose to act. What nonsense ! The writer of the article is evidently a shrewd observer of human nature. How nicely he pats the National Dairy Association on the back : what good work it has dc;ie. No doubt it will be highly pleased; but, Sir, if we could see how the matter was arranged we should find that the National Dairy Association had very little to do with the proposed reduction. It was no doubt evident to tho shipping companies that something had to be done to keep their hold on the industry, and so sot to work to consider how little they would allow, and yet put off the c.vi) day of competition. The proposed reduction is only to bo made if they arc given a monopoly for tho next seven year*. It gd is a fair charge in Australia, is not ?d too much to be charged in New Zealand? However, ws are in the hands of &_ shipping ring that will insist on the highe&t possible rates that can be safely got out of the butter industry, and we will probably have to put up with it. I know full well that it is impolitic to attempt to combat a huge combination like the shipping companies single-handed, but I believe it to be my duty to point out the injustice to which the dairy farmers have been subjected, an,d this I have do.ne. It remains for them

[to now look after their own interest o j quietly submit.—l am. etc., j June 10. Wm. J. Bolt.