SOUTHLAND LAMB.

Southland Times, Issue 19434, 24 December 1924, Page 2

SOUTHLAND LAMB.

To the Editor. Sir, —I have to thank you for your fair criticism of my letter which appeared in your issue of Saturday the 13th inet. You practically endorsed my main contention, which is that a Southland-grown lamb bearing a Canterbury brand brings at least a penny per pound more than the same lamb will do if carrying either of our local brands. Here let me say that I exceedingly regret making any statement which could be construed into imputing unworthy motives to you in your article dealing with the meeting between the representatives of the Farmers’ Union and Freezing Company. Possibly the term “inspired,” as I used it, was inapt. What I meant to convey was that the tone of your article seemed to be largely influenced by Mr Gilkison’s remarks at the meeting which your reporter dignified by the application of “conference,” but which appeared to me to savour more of the report of a court martial at which I was one of the delinquents, hence my resentment. At the meeting held on Friday last, the tone was entirely different, largely owing to the fact that we had the finest business diplomat in our province stating the case for the freezing companies. Quoting Mr Anderson: “He quite realised the difficulties the farmers were faced with, but could not quite see how they were going to get over it.” So far as I can size up the position there is no difficulty which the Farmers’ Union or any other organised body of producers can’t easily handle. They can arrange for a special “lamb” train to leave Invercargill every night or as it may suit, and take a daily tally of 2500 or more lambs north and the works there will readily absorb them. As mentioned in my last letter, the Railway Department is out for business and northern buyers greedy for lamb at up to 133 d per lb. Preaching local patriotism reads nicely, but if practising it means its being traded on by any combine trust, syndicate, or company, then I, for one, object, as will also, let me assure you, some of the preachers of the doctrine.

Quoting Mr Anderson again: “He did not think therfe could be any difference in the quality of the local lambs as compared with Canterbury, otherwise the buyers at Home would resent receiving under the Canterbury brand any carcase that was not good in average quality. So far as he knew personally, there had never been any complaint regarding Southland lambs being sold under the Canterbury brand and he very much doubted whether the retailers at Home, particularly in the northern districts, knew the difference.” This is plain commonsense which I would specially ask your readers to compare with Mr Gilkison’s statements at the other meeting when he rated all our Southland lamb as second grade. Both representatives of the companies deplored the falling off of the output of the local works, during the years when the province has materially increased its output of this particular product. The reason of this may be ascribed to a thousand and one things, but the real one is the Shylock policy adopted by the freezing companies. Let some of our Mataura beef exporters, for instance, give us their experiences. The freezing and shipping companies were not satisfied with Shylocks “pound of flesh,” but took the whole carcase and made the exporter pay them for doing so. Coming now to the question at issue, i.e., the remedy to prevent Southland lambs going north, might I be allowed to point out that this rests entirely with the local freezing companies. Through the lean years when graziers were going through a veritable inferno, the freezing companies were paying handsome dividends to their shareholders. “Turn about is fair play,” so let the shareholders, and especially the directorate portion of them, try the “simple life” for a spell. Forego dividends, which they can well afford to, reduce their charges so as to cut out northern opposition, and make a grade of “Prime Southland” to equal Canterbury brand, and then even the “far-downers” amongst us will not only preach, but practice local patriotism. I am, etc., JAMES LILICO. Lochiel, December 22. [Owing to an accident our correspondent’s letter was omitted from Tuesday morning’s issue.—Ed., S.T.]