FARMERS & WAR PRICES

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2633, 2 December 1915, Page 8

FARMERS & WAR PRICES

(To the Editor.) Sir, —"Fair Play," in his anxiety to provo his case agoinst tho farmers, gets tied up considerably in his calculations. For instance, he states that' I do not dispute his statement that "under the arrangement coneluded with the Imperial authorities by the New Zealand Government t'he New Zealand producer is receiving from ljd. to ljd. more for his beef and mutton than he did prior to the arrangement being made." Well, no, I did not dispute such a statement, and for a simple reason: tho statement was never made, and "Fair Play," if he looks up his own letter, will find that he was comparing prices before the war started, "July, 1914," with the present prices paid. His new statement that farmers are i'eeeiving the above stated increase in prices since March 3, as compared,with pri<ss received immediately prior to the commandeering, is simply ridiculous. As a matter of fact, I have beside me returns, for several classes of meat shipped before March 3, and in every case they exceed the present prices. However, "Fair Play," I expeot, refers to prices we received before the war started, compared with present rates, and I have looked up some figures on the matter, and will not take tho lowest prices quoted in ono year and compare them with tho. average prices for the following year, as "Fair Play" does, as such a method does not appeal to my sense of fair play; so I will quote the average value for the year ending September 30, 1914, and compare with the present'prices, which, of course, as we all know, do not vary. Taking the "Trade Jleview" as a guide, 1 find the following:— Increase 1914. 1915. per cent. ■ Mutton 3.3G 4.25 18JLamb 4.73 5.25 18$ Beef 3.17. 4.75 50 As we are discussing the comparative prices v paid to farmers, some deduction must bo made from this year's figures to balance the storage and extra protits which freezing companies made this season, and. which would probably amount to 3 per cent. Now for "Fair l'lay's" figures. They work out at 45 per cent, advance in mutton end lamb combined, and 80 per cent, in beef.. Of course, the "Trade Review" may be wrong, but if so I am open to correction. I may say, further, that , the "lleview" comparing the periods quoted, states that meat advanced 3d. per lb., 'and increased 22 per cent, in quantity. However, the prices paid to farmers are not really the question at issue.' I mention them because "Fair Play," acting as apologist for ifto big 'ifimpanies, strives 'to impress the public with the fact that it is the farmers who are making huge profits! It must, of course, he taken into consideration when estimating the advance in prices paid to farmers that beef is only a comparatively small portion of the meat, beef-raising having, been neglected for many years in Now Zealand on account of tho low prices. I would remind "Fair Play" that the farmers did not fix the price of the meat. _ They had nothing to do with the price, and as a matter of . fact farmers do not fix the price of their products which they sell to the- public, though such an opinion is widely held, • hut in' reality tho merchant fixed tho prices to bo paid. For instance, with stock, the freezing companies fix the price, and in a long course of years I have liover heard of a farmer being consulted in the matter. •

The same may be said of wool. Farmers sond their wool to London 'to ,lio sold, and not one in twenty put a reserve on it; all t'hey expect from their agent is tliat ho will see t-hit tho wool fetches the market price oil tho day it' is sold. Farmers as a class rarely hold their produce for higher ' prices! Ion" experience having taught them tho folly of holding perishable produce. I mention this method of business on tho part of the farmers because, in it lies the protection of the "consumer in that farmers have never combined in order to force up prices, or at least I have never heard of a successful attempt at such a combination. • Of recent years, however, science has enabled these perishable products to bo preserved, and speculators seeing the cbancc of profit nave formed huge trusts in order to manipulate the market. They can hold where the farmers could not do' so, and more important still they are united, whereas farmers are divided. They can regulate prices by witli-holtfing supplies and underselling the retailer, so driving him out of business and securing ™e retail trade, for themselves. They have' done this most effectually in the United States, and we have a suspicion that they are 'doing the same' in England.

Has -"Fair Play," in his newspaper reading, noticed Mr, Runciman's statement m the House of Commons that tlio Americans pfactioally control the meat market; that they demanded Bd. per.lb.-for their Argentine meat, and ■that the shipping companies demanded 2jd. per lb. freight? Will "Fair Play," •js the apologist for tlie big concerns, try/and justify these charges also? Has ho noticed Mr. Itunciman!s statement that the Trusts control the whole of the Australian meat? And does lie knowthat they control probably one-sixth of our supply, and that in a verv short space of time, judging by. their past successes, they will control the whole of our supplies of meat, and that having control of so much of the freight tliat our shipping will have to fall into lino with tEem? Luckily the shipping was still British, and tho British Government 'wero able to commandeer tho ships. Hut how long will they remain British .n face of such a powerful foreign influence?

It seems to me "Fair Play" is trying to turn public opinion against the farmers' and take tho side of the big speculators, hut where, after all, does the danger lie? From the farmers who for ages have sold their produce according to the simple laws of supplv, and demand, or is it from these gigantic concerns who _ do not give extra- service for tho additional price the publio will and do have to pay? I. have taken up some space to explain the position because we, as producers, want flio public-te understand t'lie position of the trade. Wo are not fighting lor higher prices, being satisfied with the market pries', and we arc quite willing that that price should bo \fixctl in tho usual way. We, however, consider that- we have a right to objeefc to the enormous Increase in the charges as tlEey must. be regar<lted as an injury to the trade, and in spite of "Fair Play's" argument they are. we consider, out of all proportion to the service rendered.—l am, etc.. F. J. HAWKER, Chairman North Island Farmers' Committee."