MEAT TRADE IN SOUTHLAND

Southland Times, Issue 23227, 16 June 1937, Page 12

MEAT TRADE IN SOUTHLAND

To The Editor Sir,—Before November 1935 we complained that we were suffering injustice as the result of a “one-man” Government and some farmers joined with wage and salary earners in the hope of effecting a change for the better. They were sadly disappointed. We have still got a “one-man” Government which can see nothing in the picture but the wage and salary men, not forgetting the sustenance man. The farmer is the one who must bear steadily increasing taxation by the Government and exploitation by business concerns and companies. At last week’s stock sales a North Canterbury buyer came down and bought 5000 lambs at Lomeville and 2000 at Wyndham. In one way and another there would be about 2/6 a head added to these lambs before they were killed. Why could not our local works have killed these lambs and given the producer the benefit of expenses in railing to Belfast? Moreover it was only the cream that this buyer took to be exported as “Prime Canterbury,” while the balance of some 4000 “seconds” was left to be exported as “Prime Southland”—a splendid advertisement for Southland. Evidently because of the huge profits the shareholders of the local works are making (37J per cent.) they are indifferent to the loss that this large quantity of lambs means to Southland. Four years ago, when farmers were going off their farms from lack of finance, these local works were only paying from 12/- to 15/- for prime lambs. Yet this same Belfast company came down at the end of the season and took all the few lambs that were left at 27/6 to 29/-. Was this company making a loss of 15/- a head plus railage? The whole business requires investigation, and if the Government could fix the rate of interest on the few hundreds of pounds saved by old pioneers at 3 per cent, surely it has the same right to fix the earning of profits on the thousands Invested by wealthy shareholders to a modest and reasonable amount and let the farmers have the difference to help pay their soaring costs of production. I wonder why the Farmers’ Union, with its something like 60 remits, did not touch on this question of shareholder profiteering?—Yours, etc., FLEECED FARMER. June 15, 1937. i To The Editor Sir,—ln reply to a letter in your paper yesterday, signed “Another Producer," I wonder if this writer knows why Borthwick’s buyer arrived in our midst and bought 5000 prime lambs. Personally I think the reason was because they could not be bought in Canterbury. “Another Producer” complains about the dividend the Southland Frozen Meat Company paid in 1933. I say good luck to the fortunate shareholders in this concern. Some years ago producers were offered shares at 15/-, but were not progressive enough to buy them then. Now this writer says he only receives three per cent, from his cheese factory. Had he been receiving 38 per cent, he would never have troubled writing to your paper. Perhaps the writer is not aware that the Southland Frozen Meat Company has paid only four per cent, this last year or two on the present price of shares. Now that the Government has fixed the price of dairy produce, this producer wants the Government to pay him a bonus out of the Southland Frozen Meat Company’s profits. This I am sure he never will receive, and if he is not satisfied I would suggest he

consigns his own produce Home and sees if he can do better. I think every Southlander should be proud of our Southland freezing industry—and of the pioneers who established this industry in very difficult times.—Yours, etc. NOT A SHAREHOLDER. June 15, 1937.