THE FLOUR DUTY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9024, 3 September 1907, Page 4

THE FLOUR DUTY.

EFFECT OF ABOLITION ON THE MILLING TRADE. [Fsou Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, September 2. The reported remarks of Mr Kaye, president elect of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, concerning the proposal to abolish tihe duty on flour, I were referred to at length by Mr D. Virtue, Wellington representative of the New Zealand Flourmillers' Association, in conversation with a " Post '* reporter. Mr. Virtue said that Mr Kaye's statement of the case .and its probabilities was very clear and correct. If the duties were taken off the result would be bad for the whole community. It was not the case that only the millers would suffer. Their case, nevertheless, would he the hardiest, and it should be recognised by the Legislature. Mr Virtue said that his official position gave him opportunities for acquiring inside knowledge, and, he would say honestly and unreservedly that he knew the flourmillers were making a substantial loss at the present time. v. " Look at this.", Here ,Mr Virtue handed the ' reporter a letter w-rittan only a few days ago by a miller on the subject. . The letter said, " Milling at the present time is absolutely rotten, and if one buys wheat at the present price and sells tihe flour at market rates a loss of from £1 to £1 10s a ton must be incurred." "That is the word of a practical, long experienced miller," continued Mr Virtue, "given privately and without thought that publicity would be giv-an to it. The whole thing was put splendidly by Sir Joseph Ward in his speech some weeks ago. He has got a magnificent grip of the whole situation. He is a business man and he knows very well how matters jstand. He knows that the millers can't go beyond the present straining point. There is a belief that the taking off of £1 per ton duty would cheapen bread, but tne probability is that the gain' would go chiefly to the bakers. Let there •be no doubt in legislators' minds about it. The New Zealand millers will have to close up if the duty is removed. That is where the community will suffer. ■ Look at the thousands who are interested in flour-mills, the capital invested, the men employed. It will be a most serious blow to New Zealand if the" duty is taken off. Another point that should be remembered is this, that every ton of- New Zealand flour sent to Australia is made to pay £2 10s duty, while Australian comes into New Zealand at £1 per ton. Yet Mr Hogg wants to wipe off that £1." Mr Virtue also spoke of the dislocation to trade caused by the doubt as to what Parliament would do. Coming on top of the general trouble as to the tariff it had had a cripoling effect, and it # wae to be hoped that Parliament would settle the question with as little delay as could be. He also referred briefly to the fact that a miller in the south had been obliged to close his mills because <yi the unprofitable nature of his business, while other milling properties had been offered for sale without finding purchasers. What the Hon J. A. Millar had said about the dumping down of inferior and cheaply-made boots would a pply to flour in equal degree, continued Mr Virtue, and by his vote on Mr Hogg's motion Mr Millar Had shown that he recognised the fact. Flour from Australia was not the only risk. There was India and America. The point he wanted light upon from Mr Hogg or anyone else was how ' we in New Zealand we're to pay higher wages for a shorter working dav and yet compete on even terms with the sweated labour products of America and India. " Now I will show you some figures that will make thoughtful people ponder," said Mr Virtue. "They will prove that since the Flour Trust has been in operation (some six years), the average price has been less than it was for the period of twelve years preceding. The millers have been able to sell cheaper, partly because df the fact that the Trust's office does the distributing and so eaves the individual millers from running separate travellers, distributors, and so forth. The prices quoted are per ton f.0.b., and they cover every year from 1890 to 1907: —

. *In 1903 the price dropped from *13 va. January to £9 10s in May. "From these figures ifc will be seen that th© average for the eleven years before the Association started was £8 17s 6d per ton, while the average since then works out at £8 5s per ton. Another test could be made by comparing the figures for 1900 and 1901, with those for 1907. In the earlier period flour was at £6 per ton, with milling wheat at about 2s per bushel. Now its price was £10 per ton, and wheat at 4s 9d per bushel, whereas by the law of proportion it should be about £13 per ton. "That is a clear illustration of things as they really are," concluded Mr Virtue. " There has been a lot of wild talk indulged in and assertions have been made that were incapable of proof, but here are facts and figures that should convince the public that th"e ease of the miller and hifi plea for retention of the flour duty is deserving of consideration, and that the formation of the trust has not been inimical to the public interests."

_£_-_- May, 1890 . , . .9 00* May, IP9I . . . . 12 0 0 May, 1892 . _ . . 10 10 0 May, 1893 . . . .800 May, 1894 . . . .700 May, 1895 . . . . 710 0 Mav, 1896 . , . " . 8 10 0 May, 1897 . . . . 10 0 0 May, i.898 . , . .12 0 0 May, 1899 . . . . 6 10 0 May, 1900 . . .600 May, 1901 . _ ..600 May, 1902 . . . .10 0 0 'May, 1903 . . . .9 10 0 May, 1904 .. . . .800 May, 1905 , . . •810 fl May, 3906 . . . , 810 0 May, 1907 . . . .810 0