ALLEGED TRUST.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18221, 4 November 1924, Page 14

ALLEGED TRUST.

FLOURMILLERS SUED. . EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. (FXESS ASSOCIATION TBLJO*AJf.) d DUNEDIX, November 3. In the flourmilling ease, the cvidenci for the defence was taken to-da3". Bobert Kay Ireland, director of Ire n land and Co., Oamaru. producers o. t Liiywhite flour, stated that before th< eontrol scheme of 1917. millers specu- ' lated heavily in wheat, and the price.o! ", flour was often fictitious during the i control period when there was fear o! ' a shortage. Tho Government embarkec "' on exportation early in 1922, eompct- ' ing with millers for wheat. This inl > .'liiced the latter to buy stocks. In this 1 year the Minister announced there c would be no control in 1923, and prace tic-ally it gave ali the warrants asked f for to millers. A certain number of e millers overbought and endeavoured tc <•• secure extra trade bv cutting, wnich continued between April and Septem--3 ber, 1922. In July of that year, with : i:o prospect of Dist rub tors, Ltd., being formed, witness's company, having purchased wheat to carry on till February, » had either to follow the cutting method j or carry stocks into the following year, knowing that the- world's parity was | considerably below the price they paid ; the Government. Thev determined to • sell at spiead delivery tip till February 1 at prices ranging down to £l6 a ton, '■ tlie gazetted jiriee being £lB. During 1 that period the firm's losses were £603. ' The wheat was sold in Otago and South- ' land. The position at Christchurch was practically the same during this period. millers entering into contracts with j farmers for next season's wheat. All [ these were rescinded when Distributors, Ltd., was formed. The price paid to • the farmer after tho formation of Distributors. Ltd., was slightly higher i than under wheat control, under which several flour mills were closed for periods after having ground the wheat allotted them. During the existence of Distributors, Ltd., witness's firm marketed and sold all the flour gristed, so that the market was not deprived of any of tho eompany,'s flour. In answer to the Judge, witness stated the cost of distribution was not increased under Distributors, Ltd. "Witness said that last year the millers reduced the price of pollard from £8 to £7, giving a saving of £25,000 annually to New Zealand consumers. If the price-cutting in 1922 had not been stopped, the industry would have got into a bad state. He thought the bulk of the cut was retained bv the bakers. Cross-examined, witness said his reference to losses during the acute cutting meant the loss of the difference between the selling price and the gazetted price, not the actual trading loss. John Heaton Birker, of Auckland, secretary of the New Zealand Master Bakers' Association for the past four years, and editor of the "Bakers' Review/' said it was his duty to keep in touch with the flourmilling industry. He went to Christchurch. in 1922 in connexion with the formation of Distributors, Ltd. He was in Kaikoura in. May of that year, when he learned of the cut in the price of .flour, and he immediately proceeded to Christchurch, and learned that a number of New Zealand bakers were on. their way to Christchurch. In his official capacity he interviewed the millers, pointing out that cutting in the price of flour would result in cutting in the price of bread, and that would result in dislocation in the industry throughout. New Zealand. They were in Christchurch for about a week, and he did not remember any other steps taken Ly the master bakers at that stage. They were pressing the' millers to join together. It was a matter of importance that bakers should be charged a uniform price for flour, to prevent cutting in the nrice of bread. Prior to 1922, bakers had had a difßI culty in getting the brands of flour they desired. He had been enabled | while in Christchurch, as a result of his negotiations with Distributors, Ltd., to secure a larger supply of northern manufactured flour for Southland bakers. In January of this year, the annual meeting, of the Master Bakers' and Pastrycooks' Association had bee.i held in Christchurch. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart had sent for him prior to the v meeting, and they had discussed the trouble that had arisen in Invercargjll in the previous October. Witness raised the question/ of all wheat being tested prior to milling. The Minister then called on Mr

Collins, Mr Schmidt, and Mr Colquhoun. He had been assured by these Departmental officers that they thought this would be feasible. Witness then brought the matter up before the conference, and certain resolutions were passed and forwarded to the Government. So far as he knew, there had been no result apart from Laurenson's trouble. He knew of no complaint from Dunedin. Since, the beginning of January of this year there were only a few minor complaints regarding flour from other bakers outside of Otago and Southland. To Mr Callan: The only bakers who had given substantial trouble were those in Otago and, Southland, so far aa witness knew. To Mr Myers: There were about 600 master bakers in New Zealand. It was a usual complaint before Distributors, Ltd., was formed that bakers could not get the brands of flour they desired. There were no mills outside Distributors, Ltd,, an the North Island except those at Auckland. These outside mills could not fill all the orders sent in in Auckland. The £IOO donation to the Master Bakers' Association was from Messrs Wood and Co., Christ-church, and not from Distributors, Litd.- -•..-■.■-.. George W. Lo-adley, farmer, Ashburton, said 'he had grown wheat for some years.- He had been president of the N.Z. Farmers' Union, and in 1923 was closely associated with the wheatgrowers. He was chairman of the Wheat Board set up'by'agreement, between tho millers and wheat-growers. If the wheat agreement of 1923 had not been brought about, the effect would have been the collapse- of the wheat market and a great majority of farmers would have had to abandon wheat growing and go in for some other farming activities. As a matter of fact, some of the farmers did abandon wheat-growing. In the spring of 1922--September and October—the wheat situation was very unsatisfactory, and. very confused from the grower's point of view. The Government took control of the marketing of wheat that year, as in previous years, and it announced at the end of October that it would take over the whole of the wheat left in farmers' hands. The Government also raised the standard .of wheat, and thereby j caased £ieat dissatisfaction growers. Early in 1923 the Hon. W. Nosworthy gave him his assurance that if a suitable agreement and price were made between the millers and growers, the Government would endorse it and maintain the embargo on importations. He ha'd called a meeting of the Farmers' Union Executive in Ashburton, and they had agreed to the agreement. His executive empowered him to call a conference of Canterbury provinoial executives with representatives of Distributors, Ltd., and merchants and brewers. Mr McDonald, representing Distributors, Ltd., was notified and he attended. An agreement was arrived ai> and the wheat crop of 1923 was denrfc with under it. He thought he covid plead guilty to being the author of the scheme ("or take the credit," added Mr MyerS). The Minister approved of the agreement. The Minister did not see eye

(Oontliuwdv at-foot -0f -amrt -calxnan.) j

to eye with the farmers regarding the price, and _he (witness) got them to reduce their demands. Notwithstanding the fixed price, some farmers had gone cut of wheat-growing and gone in for sheep. William Waiter Mulholland, farmer, Darfield, Canterbury, examined by Mr Myers, said he was vice-chairman of the Wheat Board. He substantially ! agreed with what the previous witness had said in rejrard to the wheat agree- : ment. If the 19*23 agreement had not ; been made, the price received by far- i mers must have been much below what j it was. j The CGurt adjourned till 10 o'clock • to-morrow morning.