UNWELCOME LETTER

Southland Times, Issue 20670, 17 December 1928, Page 7

UNWELCOME LETTER

MARKET FOR MEAT. . CRITICISM OF BOARD NOT SUPPORTED. NON-MEMBER WRITES TO FARMERS’ UNION. IYe appearance on the order paper of the monthly meeting on Saturday of the Southland executive of the Farmers’ Union of the item in the correspondence section: ‘ From Mr James Lilico, regarding prospecting other markets for New Zealand farm produce outside the Port of London” caused some interest among members and gave rise to a discussion whether the letter should be received unread or not. Mr Peter Arnott said that Mr Lilico persistently refused to join the union unless it entered the field of politics. He had frequently criticised the union, and in view of this the speaker did not think the time of the executive should be taken up in the consideration of critical letters from one who was not only not a member but who definitely refused to join the organisation. Mr F. Linscott moved that the letter should be received unread. Mr R. Sim opposed thia attitude, and said the executive should give tolerance to all people whether members or otherwise. Farmers who refused to join the union should be convinced that it was to their interest to support the organization. The suggestion contained in the motion would be directly opposed to winning over to the union those who were not members. He moved that the letter be read. The amendment was carried by twelve votes to six. The secretary then read the letter which was as follows: —“I would like to suggest to your executive that they should move in the matter of getting our produce sent to other ports than London. The members will no doubt have noted the report of the speech delivered last week by a representative of Manchester, and a few weeks ago also we had a Mr Ford, representing the Port of Glasgow, and pointing out its advantage?. Time and again I have in the Press drawn attention to the fact that London is not the only market in Britain open to us and I was long ago satisfied that Tooley Street is not the only combine we have against us. In any case to test their markets why can’t the Meat Board make a trial shipment ? They should do so, even supposing they guarantee the exporters against a loss on the current London prices. The board has a reserve of some £BO,OOO levied for the most part from sheep-ownere, and even supposing a few thousands went to make up a loss, which is most unlikely, the producers would not grumble. Although not personally interested in dairy produce 1 should say that the same remarks apply. Your members could not fail to be impressed by what the gentleman from Manchester had to say about the potentialities of his city as a centre of distribution for our produce. They have more millions to feed than London. Ido not know the district, but I do know Glasgow, where, according to Mr Ford, they have six millions within easy reach. Liverpool will have somewhere about ten millions, and Hull five millions, yet to reach this huge hungry crowd, mostly workers, our products have to bear the charges of double handling and railage of from 200 to 400 miles. Our Meat Board is supposed to be exploiting new markets and last year the London manager went to New York, which cost some £3BO in travelling expenses. I look on this as a waste of time and money. Why run after the Yankee when it is a dollar to a dime if there is a cent to be made or saved he will be after you? What I would like specially to be impressed on your members is that with all the boasted advertisements of the Meat Board, we have business men coming right out here to tell us that they are not getting our produce in the quantities they can absorb, and what they do get is burdened with charges which are quite unnecessary. The natural inference to be drawn from Ulis is that there are powerful influences at work to keep London as the distributing centre. The head offices of all the meatsalesmen are there, so it would be against their interests to have meat discharged at other ports. It is worthy of note that the Port of London authority would never consider any reduction of storage charges until our Meat Board bought a site to erect stores of its own and they capitulated. I think this is most significant as the same body of men will probably control railway and shipping interests, and also have a say in some of our meat works. We can, therefore, readily understand the difficulties our Meat Board are up against. The board, however, can count on the backing of the Government and will probably have the support of the farmers in any attempt made to break down the opposition to widen the distribution of our produce by a combine which has bled New Zealand farmers to the time of millions sterling. lam not making any charges, but we cannot help drawing inferences and I have long been convinced that this huge financial octopus is well represented in New Zealand by some of the best brains connected with our staple industry. I make no apology for bringing a matter of such importance before your executive.” Mr E. K. Sim said the letter was practically a vote of censure and no-confidence in the Meat Board. He reminded members that the annual report of the board stated that every market possible was being exploited to the fullest extent. He moved that the letter be received. A member: Refer it to the Meat Board. Another member: Refer Mr Lilico to the Meat Board (Laughter'. Mr R. Sim moved that the letter should be referred to the Meat and Wool Committee. The amendment was lost and the letter was accordingly received, no action being taken.