71

EL—3O

I asked Mr. Jones if there was any truth in that statement, and he assured me there was not. I pointed out to him at the time that it would be disastrous to our company if it were so, as it.would make it impossible for us to finance. It now appears that the banker's statement was correct and Mr. Jones's assurance was not. This phase is again borne out by the statement of Mr. Harding, a member of the Meat Board, at a meeting he held at Gisborne, viz. : " That one. of the reasons the Board excluded the ' Oodrington ' from the new freight contract was because the company had cut freights." (See letter attached marked " C.") On the 27th September, 1922, I, as Chairman of the company, sent the following wire to Mr. D. Jones, as Chairman of the Meat Board :— " Directors anxious for company to intimate publicly for information shareholders that we are arranging for your Board to make all shipping arrangements for our company's requirements in coming season in common with other freezing companies, and that the ' Codrington ' will remain in the running, but be loaded with frozen produce as directed from time to time by your Board. Please wire me if you see any objection t*o our giving publicity on above lines." On the 29th September, 1922, I received the following reply from the Meat Board : — " In reply to your telegram of 27th to Chairman if a contract for the carriage of meat is made by the Board with the regular liners the Board will see that the Poverty Bay Farmers' Meat Company has an opportunity of joining in the contract for the carriage of meat from the Waipaoa works. If ' Codrington ' is placed in the running it must be at option of other freezing companies whether they ship by her or not." On the 10th October, 1922, I wrote a further reply to the Meat Board, from which I take the following extract: — " My company would be glad to have something more definite from your Board regarding the shipping position, so that we may know where we stand in the matter. The two questions are : Is your Board prepared to arrange the whole of the shipping for our company, and, secondly, will the Board arrange that this company's ship ' Admiral Codrington ' is provided with frozen-meat freight from time to time from New Zealand to such ports as may be arranged with your Board," &c. On the 19th October, 1922, I received the following reply from the Meat Board : — " In connection with the agreement arrived at between the Board and the shipping companies for the carriage of refrigerated produce from New Zealand, I have to advise you that the initial agreement provides for your company joining in the contract which will be subsequently made and receiving allotments of shipping-space in the overseas liners in the same way as other freezing companies. " Further provision is made that when the s.s. ' Admiral Codrington ' returns to New Zealand space on this ship shall be allotted to the Poverty Bay Farmers' Meat Company (Limited) and to other freezing companies—the rates of freight and insurance to be the same as those charged on the established liners." Subsequently the formal shipping contract was drawn up, and this company was one of the parties to it, and the company naturally concluded they would be consulted when the Board desired to make any alteration or renewal of same. On the sth October, 1923, Mr. Jones made the following public statement to the Press : — '' The Meat Board's sympathies are entirely with the Poverty Bay works. Our insistence in maintaining and securing that their ship should be included in the last season's freight contract rendered them valuable assistance, which they acknowledged." By the admission in the above extract it is clea.r Mr. Jones and the Board were fully alive to the vital importance of the company's ship being in the contract, and the necessity of the Board's insistence in maintaining and securing its inclusion not only for existing contracts but for future contracts, and the fact that the Board admits that the company acknowledged that the Board had rendered valuable assistance in including the ship in the contract. Surely if the Board had an open mind this in itself should have been sufficient to justify the Board in still insisting on the ship being included, or at least to communicate with the company before excluding the ship. With your assistance a promise was made on behalf of the Board in March last to include the " Codrington " in next year's contract, and in connection with this Mr. Jones made a lot of untrue and incorrect statements of fact reflecting on the company, but he refused to disclose from what source he received this information. In consequence of the action of the Board in excluding the " Codrington " from the New Zealand trade, it has caused the company very serious loss, and may entail the loss of the company's steamer. Regarding No. 6 above : This is sufficiently explained and justified by the correspondence attached hereto and marked " B1 " to " 87." Regarding No. 7 above: This is sufficiently supported by the letter itself, containing, as it does, a number of untrue and misleading statements. In conclusion, it is quite apparent from all the circumstances that Mr. Jones, in particular, and the Meat Board set themselves out to assist in breaking up the local company to satisfy the bank's desire, and for the benefit of the biggest combine in the world ; also to exclude the company's ship from the New Zealand trade, and this they have done without hearing the company in defence of its rights and position. I now ask you, as head of the Government, does the Government approve of what has been done and complained of above ? And if it does not approve, then will it in the meantime, in the best interests of the producers of this Dominion, remove Mr. Jones as Government nominee from the Meat Board ? I have, &c., W. Douglas Lysnab.