The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1927. WHEAT AND FLOUR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19772, 21 February 1927, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1927. WHEAT AND FLOUR

me question of the dumping duty on flour is still being strongly agitated in Canterbury, where the millers seem to have induced the growers to believe that all importations must be shut out, regardless of the effect which must follow upon such action. Examination of the position goes to show that the agitation is almost wholly in the millers ’ interest, and that those of the farmers take second place. Indeed, it looks as if the farmers are being used as eatspaws. While the wheat growers will be sympathised with in the faet that the prices they are receiving give them little margin, it is evident from the views expressed by a deputation, which waited on the Government last week that the real object of the agitation is to afford protection to the millers ■without conferring any advantage upon the growers. In effect, the Government is asked to place an embargo upon imported flour, while leaving wheat with no more tariff protection than it already has. The idea which seems to underlie this proposal is that, the competition of imported flour being removed, the millers would then buy the local growers’ wheat for milling. Probably they would, but at what price? Such a situation would leave the farmers entirely at the millers ’ mercy. They would have to take what was offered, in the certainty that, if they refused it, the millers could then import wheat and leave the growers with their own grain on their hands. As a matter of fact, this has actually been done.

If the millers were to guarantee the farmers a satisfactory price, engage to purchase their wheat, and undertake to deliver flour at a reasonable price per ton, so as to maintain the price of bread at its present level while securing a satisfactory profit both for themselves and the growers, their request for a dumping duty that would shut out imported flour might receive more consideration than the Government has given it. But the millers’ policy seems to be: “Heads, we win; tails, you lose!’’ While ready to assist the farmers so far as may be, the Government is not inclined to tie them to the millers’ chariot wheels. Further, it takes the broad view that there is another interest to be considered—that of the public, and, as the Hon. W. Downie Stewart has already pointed out, it would be beyond reason to expect the Government to neglect that. Equally unreasonable would it be to bolster up the millers at the farmers’ expense. The wonder is that the Canterbury growers do not see this.