The Harvester Trust.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12796, 30 September 1905, Page 3 (Supplement)

The Harvester Trust.

During the year 1904 agricultural im-plements-to the value of £82,388 were imported into this country from America. According to a Christchurch authority, who ns interested in metal manufacturing, these figures, when closely examined, give a very good illustration of how the values of imported machines rise in course of transit, and how New Zealand is affected from a manufacturing point of view through the American importations. Approximately, last year 1200. reapers and binders were landed in New Zealand from America. The value of these.machines in New York is roughly estimated at £24,000, in New Zealand £3O, 900, while the selling -value—that is the price at which they are disposed of to the farmer—is figured out at £48,000. The cost of material used in the manufacture of these machines is set down at £12,000, and labour at £9600, making a total of £21,600. In New Zealand where higher wages obtain, the labour required for the manufacture of the same number of machines woul3 have meant an expenditure of £14,000. Similar comparisons apply in the case- of mowers and reapers. None of the machines mentioned. are;'a.t present- manufactured in New Zealand.: ' -The same authority has been calculating what the "American invasion meant in respect of imported machines of a type which are manufactured in New Zealand. The one thousand drills landed in the colony from America in 1904 had a value of £22,500 when shipped at, say, the port of New -York- In New Zealand the value jumped-to £28,000, and the selling value," approximately,' ultimately reached the very respectablypum x>f £42,500. •• The cost of American -labour used in 'producing tliese machines' and cost- of material, was about £19,000. - The: 800 cultivators imported, had a-value on board'ship at'Ne'w York of £12,000. in New Zealand - the - landing rvalue was -approximately £14,400, and the aggregate selling {>rioe to the fanner £23,400, the labour and material used necessitating an expenditure of £4OOO and £3200 respectively:.: It -is calculated that in New Zealand fhd. labour necessary to manufacture same number of machines would

hare meant- ail expenditure of £6OOO. Comparisons 0? a like _ nature were made in xespect of cultivators, ploughs, disc harrows,' tine harrows, rakes, and spring •tooth harrora. Finally, it is estimated tliat value of the £82,388 worth of imported was £144,910. If thfewholevof the machines imported had been manufactured in New Zealand employment would have been given for one yea" to 500 m4n, who would have received, ap proximately, £47,430 in, wages. A • FARMER'S OPINION.

Mr M. M. Ha'l, manager for Messrs Booth, McDonald and Co., and Mr Cooper, of Messrs Cooper and Duncan, recently wrote to -Mr G. W. Leadley in referencf to the American Harvester Trust. The following reply made by Mr Leadley to Mr Copperjwill'be read with interest ' . ' Wakanni, September 15th, 1905. .Dear Sir,—Yours of yesterday's dat reached me this morning, together wit Cbristchurch papers giving an account o 1 Wednesday-' eight's meeting re Harveste■Trust-." I am rather under the impressitr Ahat all the excitement and talk is some -what premature. I am not aware that- th IbternatioEal Harvester Trust has as ye m4de" its influence felt in New Zealand f any- considerable extent, and I think thsi st would", have; been we'l to have waite" a little before proposing such drastic mear nres as tlio'se determined ..upon by. th? Christchnrr-h ■ meeting. Our' .Parliamer meets every yea;-; and if the local imple ment- making industry was seriously threatened by the operations of foreign competition, it would not take very long to move Parliament to take the necessary steps to protect ic. Bnt so far as I can at present see; the implement makers are crying out before they are hurt. I may be wroDg, not knowing to what extent the Trust it already- capturing the local trade, but that is how the matter presents itself to me. On the general question, there is room for'a good deal to be said on all sides. Mr'Mcßride, who, I understand, was at one time connected with the Massey-Harris people,; says "News Zealand farmers pay more for their implements than any other men in' the world." If that is so, it would appear" that Cthere is room for a little liealthy competition. I know that the local makers . say that the profit is at- present very small. That may be so in some cases, but. I happen to know that some firms are doing very well indeed. I aln a shareholder in one implement-making company.. and I only-wish that the capita! I had invested ip land and stock yielded as good interest-as the few pounds I have invested in the concern named. Bnt if the profits are small, as stated, and the industry languishing, as we are led to believe, what is the cause? Is the industry overdone! Are the conditions unfavourable? Is the competition over" keen? There must be some -answer. May I suggest one? Some little time ago at a meeting of employers in Christohurch one of the speakers is reported" to have said that "the output of labour was now one third less than it used to be." Is that true? And if it is true, why is it so? Are the men less efficient than formerly? Are the methods employed not of date? Is the machinery used less perfect? To the first query the men themselves would no doubt give a vigorous denial, and claim, as no doubt they have a right- to do, that they are quite as expert as their fore-elders. To the second the masters would reply that they are constantly improving their methods of work, etc. And a 8 to the third, it is well known that the whole mechanical world is laid under tribute to supply the most up-to-date and perfect machinery and appliances that the brain of man can devise, or that money can' "buy. If then these things are so, wKy is it that the productive power of labour ; is, as stated, " one third less than formerly." -That in short the labour cost of prod'icine a given article is one third more than it should be. The only possible "itnswer brings ns face to face with a very ugly fact, viz., that the men deliberately restrict. the. output, that you pay a man nine shillings, and get six shillings worth of work jn return. Mind I am not saying • that- these tilings are so, I only pursue the

statement of one of yourselves—a, Christchutch factory owner —to its only legitimate and logical conclusion. And I ask if this is a coirect analysis of the condition of thiiigs under which the local industries (implement maters else) are carried on; I a-sk. how is it possible that any industry can succeed? You may hare as much protection as you like, it is impossible, to carry anything to a successful issue where_:srich conditions prevail; A word as to the suggestion that- if the Governmentimpose a prohibitive duty on imported machinery and implements, the local makers VOIIYI give a bond that they would not charge the 'farmer* more than present rates. There are a few tilings I for one would want to know respecting that bond. What ■would be its currency ? Who would hold it, what would be the penalty for its nonfulfilment, who would ' -'lect the penalty, and how would it be :ributed amongst the buyers of implems.-.s? These and a few " other pertinent questions would, I think, require to be answered before the fanners would consent to the imposition of a duty of 40 per cent, as proposed. I may eay that X do not use American implements jayself. In a very large range of working phujt and implements I have not a single "Yankee " tool, with the single exception of a couple of McCormick reapers long since discarded in favour of Massey Harris. But all the same I cannot close my eyes to the fact that the American machinery has much to recommend it, and that if they adopt some of our colonial ideas they will undoubtedly become very formidable competitors with our exeel'en.t locally made implements. But as a farmer I cannot consent to put- my head into the noose of protection to the" tune of 40 per cent. Let it be remembered that the N.Z. farmers .have to grow our grain, wool, mutton, cheese,- butter, etc., and put it on the ■world's markets in competition with the world.- Remember that 13,000 miles jof pcSan lies between us and our best cus--tomer, and that the Sphinx riddle which -we iava to answer or die is: How can it 3>e dot)*? Ip conclusion, I have to tb&nk

you for writing me so fully. Any assistance which I can give to the solution of a difficult problem will (I can assure you) be cheerfully rendered. I have given notice of motion to introduce the question of discussion at our meeting of the Farmers' Union Executive on Wednesday next. Probably a conference between ourselves and the manufacturers may be arranged. In the meanwhile I remain sincerelv yours. „ GEO. W. LEAD LEY."