NO ASSOCIATION WITH MEAT TRUST.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17755, 27 January 1926, Page 8

NO ASSOCIATION WITH MEAT TRUST.

TANNERIES COMMISSION HEARS STATEMENT BY SIMS, COOPER & CO.

(Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON. January 27 hen the Woolston Tannery petition inquiry was contimied tn-dav the suggestions once curfent of Sims, Coopef and Company’s association with the American trust were completely cleared up. Arthur Ernest Cooper, one of the chief shareholders in. Sims. Cooper, Ltd. said that his firm owned roughly twothirds of the shares in the Woolston Tanneries. He and SiiTrs commenced business together in # 1905, and they had made* a success of'their undertaking. When they commenced they did not have very much capital.

The Commissioner (Si? John Hosking) : Is it necessary to go into all this? Are we interested in the history of this business Mr Myers: You will see sir, in a moment. what I am leading up to. Continuing his examination Mr Myers asked: During 1917 and since then the suggestion has been made in New Zealand th; t your company was financed by the American Meat Trust.— Yes. Was there a vestige of truth in that statement or suggestion?—None whatWas there at any time any foundation for such a statement?—No. When you commenced .your business you were able. I think, to commence in a large way?—Yes. What were your resources?—New Zealand finance and ordinary bank’ng facilities. It is a fact, is it not. that neither you, nor Mr Cooper, had an opportunity of personally appearing before any inquiry in 'New Zealand?—That is quite frue. I understand, however, that you and Mr Sims, in 1917, offered the fullest inspection, both here and in London, of your banking documents and arrange-ments?--Yes. I saw Mr Massey personally in London. If that inspection had been made it would have shown that what you were saying now is correct?—Yes. Sir John Findlay: I would like to say that in no part of our case do we allege an association with the meat trust. T accept without hesitation and without doubt the evidence which has just been given. The Government is satisfied that Sims, Cooper, have never at any time had any association wiib the American trust. Sir John Findlay then asked for permission for Dr Reakes to make a brief statement. “ I would like to sayg” said the Director of Agriculture, “ that I quite agree with Sir John Findlay in the statement which he has just made. There was an opinion widely held in New Zealand for a very long time that this firm was in some wav associated with the American trust. A$ I have already said in evidence on previous occasions I at one time was inclined to that opinion myself, but having heard what Mr Cooper has said I quite unhesitatingly accept the statements.”

Mr Myers said that that statement would simplify the case very considerably. All they desired when they made their first claim was a definite statement that the company was in no way connected with the American Meat Trust, and in view of the statements made on behalf of the Government it would not now be necessary to press the first claim. He wanted to make it plain that at no time had they made the charge of conscious bias against Dr Reakes. Sir John Findlay said that if Dr Reakes had suspicion regarding the company’s association with the American trust, that suspicion was a bona fide one. Mr Mvers: Wc don't question that. Sir John Findlay continued his cross-examination of Mr Olliver, who said that had instructed Bell, Gully, Bell and Myers to draw up a petition to Parliament. Sir John Findlay: Why was no mention made in the petition of the alleged undertaking of the Board of Trade to see you througjh?—lt was arranged that no personal matters should be introduced. How was that a personal matter? —We thought that the Agricultural Department wanted to put the blame for .our position on the shoulders of the Board of Trade. You never attempt to lead the M to Z Committee of the House to believe that you had an undertaking from the Board of Trade?—No.

Was there any such bargain ?—There was no bargain. There was a bargain that we should stabilise prices. There was no bargain with the Board of Trade, but there was an honourable understanding. The Board of Trade appears to have treated you very well?—-The Board of Trade gave us a fair deal right through. I was quite satisfied with the prices. The main thing was to keep business going. There seems to be an idea that all business men are thinking Kti money all the time. I don’t suppose you claim to be a philanthropist?—No, but you will not find any fairer men to deal with than business men.

Witness said that the company was not asking the Government to give them £IIO,OOO. They felt, however, that their losses had been out of all proportion. It was not altogether fair that the Government should receive the benefit, that the public should receive the benefit and the company receive the whole knock. They did not wish

to make anything out of the war. The witness added later that since 1920 the company had lost £130,000, but were still carrying on.

EVIDENCE OF LOSS IN LEATHER TRADE.

Per Frees Association. WELLINGTON, January 27. Continuing his evidence before the Woolston Tanneries Commission, Mr Olli\iier, chairman of directors of Woolston Tanneries, Ltd., said that the Board of Trade existed for the good of the community and that policy resulted in a great loss to witness’s firm. They relied on having the New Zealand market to themselves. For three months New Zealand never produced sufficient boots for her own requirements. Boots which came from Australia were cheap and badly fitting. The South African market was closed against Australian boots and the latter were then dumped with leather into New Zealand as the embargo was being lifted. In February, 1920. his firm had a turnover of £34,534. The following month the turnover was £25,907. and in June it was £13,981, falling to £3BOO in December. His company’s total loss was £110,016 through relying on the Board of Trade to stabilise prices and continuing to tan. Sir John. Hosking remarked that it was a question of whether his firm or the Board of Trade should bear the joss- . . . r .