MEAT EXPORT LICENSES.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2029, 16 August 1920, Page 3

MEAT EXPORT LICENSES.

SHEEPFARMERS CONFER. FREE TRADE SUPPORTED. At a meeting of the Canterbury Shcepowners' I'nion last week, members unanimously voted iu favour of a license being granted to Armour and Co., of Australasia, Ltd., to buy and export meat in and from the Dominion. On Friday evening a meeting of sheepfarmers, convened by Mr L. A. Rutherford, met in the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the position regarding the future disposal of New Zealand frozen meat, and a further resolution was passed urging that no obstacle be placed in the way of any firm operating in New Zealand, provided its operations be not detrimental to the producer. Mr Rutherford, who was elected to the chair, said that, in dealing with the question of licenses to export buyers, it had to be understood that the Government had power to cancel a license, held by a firm, at any'tune. It was claimed that the large American firms were too powerful to be allowed a footing here. If this contention were right, there could be no encouragement given to competition. By having a few more powerful companies competing hi our markets there would not be the danger of rings being formed, as had been formed time after time at country fairs. Was it not a fact, also, that Australia was having difficulty in raising loans ou the English market because she had not treated the big Home interests fairly? If that w-ere {he case, were they not undertaking a great responsibility in refusing to allow powerful firms like Armours and Yesteys to operate before they had proved detrimental in any way? This was the responsibility now resting upon the Government. The North Island farmers wanted free markets for their butter, and cheese, but iiot for meat. A newspaper statement that the federation suggested letting Armours have "everything" was grossly misleading. This course was never contemplated, as the wording of the petition would show. An article had appeared in a Wellington paper, quoting an extract from "Cold Storage," a paper issued in the interests of the British'wholesale meat trade. The heading of this article was: "Meat Trusts, War Profits, Their Gains Quadrupled." It then went on to show that the profits made by this so-called trnst had doubled, trebled, and quadrupled during the years 19151917. This was held up as an awful warning to farmers iu New Zealand to beware of this octopus. Looking over the past balance-sheets of some of the New Zealand concerns, he found that New Zealand, the land of freedom from trust methods and aft that this implies, could go one better. One set of balance-sheets that showed a net profit of £30,000 for the year when War started, disclosed a rising scale of profit through the War period until, on its last year's working, the enormous sum of nearly £148,000 was made, or nearly five times the profit made at the start of the War. The North Island Resolution. Dealing with the resolution passed in the North Island recommending the Government to refuse licenses to Armours and Yesteys, Mr Rutherford stated that, what he had learned of Vestey Bros.' operations was entirelv favourable to them, and he felt that the North Island resolution was purely the outcome of a misconception of the actual position, and the result of misrepresentation by interested parties. Mr Justice Kwing, in his report ou the Commission's inquiry in Australia, stated that the suspicions expressed that Vestey Bros, were part of the American meat trust might be entirely eliminated. "Tiie Fanners' Union Advocate,"

the official organ of the Farmers' Union, referred to this question in its issue of August 7, and stated that it could hardly believe that any large number of "farmers were satisfied that the benefits outweighed the risks of coming to close quarters with the tentacles of the octopus, and said that it had always been the policy of farmers to appeal to the Government to keep the trust at arm's length, it added that it did not think the Shoepowners' Federation had changed its views on the general principle of preventing the trust from securing the dominating position in the meat trade. In answer to this, said Mr Rutherford, he liiaincd that the advantages were all on the side of the farmer, anil the risks absolutely Don-existent, as the powers held by the Government completely

safeguarded them. The question had been taken up solely by the union in what it honestly considered to be the best interests of the farmers. The article led readers to believe that Armour and Co. had been "stringpulling." and otherwise pressing their claims. He wished to give the lie direct to these statements. The responsibility for the petition lay with himself and Mr 11. D. Acland. As for the statement that Armour and Co.. or any other concern, were able to influence any New Zealand paper or journalist, to publish anything that was not iu accordance with fact, all he could say was that this was not his opinion of the New Zealand Press. Further on in the article it was stated that, if any firm were allowed to export, it must buy, and this entailed the granting of stores and a killing license. Armour and Co. in the past had been able to handle £:>75,000 worth of meat annually. Tt had been done through existing works and could still be put through these 'channels. The firm was prepared to put all its killing through farmers' works 'where possible, and to place its operations entirely under Government' -Supervision. It would be interesting to know how many New Zealand firms were prepared to allow this measure of protection to the farmer. The produce from the farms was the private. property of the respective farmers, and he maintained that no Government had the right to dictate to any member of the community how he should dispose of his private property. No Wall Round New Zealand. Mr '■':. W. Sheratt. (Gisbome) stated that he was in favour of free trade as regards meat. He had been at the conference at Wellington when Mr Rutherford had asked Mr Massey if he favoured free trade for meat, and Mr Massey had replied in the affirmative. The question divided itself into two points which affected the farmer. First, if the export buyer was not to have his license, it was tantamount to building a wall round New Zealand as regards its produce. The producers would then have to ship Home, which would place them more in the hands of trusts than if they sold in New Zealand. Second, that practically 75 per cent, of the farmers of ~Spw Zealand could not afford to ship meat Home. He strongly favoured free trade in meat, provided that there should be the protection by the Act that licenses could be cancelled if the buyers were proved to do anything injurious to trade. The majority of people in Hawke's Bay were in favour of the project. At the present meat market was "in the air," and there were big accumulations of meat, both here and in England. If a good part of this season's meat could be exported to America, it would ease the position tremendou:d\ r .

Mr John Grigg favoured a license being granted to Armour and Co. for a period of one year. New Zealand did not want its markets limited. It wanted the best markets the world could offer. With the competition between the Nffw York and the British markets, the price of lamb was bound to reach a

high figure, although freight and other charges were double. Mr G. W. Leadley said that he was not present in any official capacity as representative of* the New Zealand Farmers' Union, of which, at present, he happeued to be the head. He had noticed some correspondence in tinpapers, criticising the attitude, on the meat question, of the Farmers' Union at the recent conference, lie wished to say that ho stood alone at that conference in opposing the resolution that was passed. There was a suggestion in Sir James Wilson's presidential address that Sir Thomas Mackenzie should break his journey to the Dominion in America, in order to ascertain the possibility of placing New Zealand meat in Canada and the United States. It was clear that, in his mind, he considered there was, in America, a possible market for New Zealand meat. America was undoubtedly going to have a tremendous influence in the world, commercially and otherwise, lie, personally, had never joined iu the "hue and cry" against the American companies coming to New Zealand to do business. The producers of meat required, and should welcome, all the competition which could be obtained, provided it was on fair and legitimate lines. (Applause.) The financial condition of the country, the payment of an annual recurring interest, and the necessity for the development of its resources were so colossal that every pound, every shilling, was necessary. If they could see any way of making the products of Ncsjv Zealand more valuable they should use every means in their power to do so. The Resolutions. Mr G. B. Starky.moved:—"That this meeting of Canterbury sheepfarmers deems it necessary that outside buyers be allowed to export meat direct from New Zealand." Mr Leadley suggested that a resolution be submitted to the Government that "This meeting of Canterbury sheepfarmers endorses, as producers, the action taken by the Canterbury Sheepfarmers' Union, as outlined by the petition forWarded to Parliament." Mr Starky consented to withdraw his motion. Mr Geo. Gould moved: "That this meeting is of the opinion that no obstacle be placed in the way of any firm operating in New Zealand, provided that the operations of any firm be not detrimental to the interests of the producers of New Zealand." The motion ,was seconded by Mr C. Robertson, and carried.