ARMOUR AND COMPANY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 267, 5 August 1920, Page 5

ARMOUR AND COMPANY

Sir,—Referring to Mr. Marshall's statement at the Farmers' Union Conference: "That Wellington njid North -Island sheepfarmers had not been consulted in any way re the granting of a liceuso to American firms to operate in New Zealand," I wish to state that this is incorrect, as two of tho Wellington sheepfarmers' delegates to the Siieepowners' Federation, were present fit tho Federation Conference when this matter was fully discussed, and tho federation's views in this connection wero written out- and perused by these two gentlemen, and the publication thereof was unanimously decided upon. ' Under these circumstances, it should bo perfectly clear to any unbiased person that the decision arrived at by the federation wai representative of both islands, and not, as Mx. Marshall states, only the opinion of South Island sheepfanners—l am. etc., H. D. ACLAND, President, N.Z. Sheepowners' and Farmers' Federation. Christchureh, August 3, 1920.

Sir,—The letter in your recent issue signed "F. H. Sandall" is interesting; it would have been even more interesting to the public at large if Mr. Sandall had appended to his signature Jiis description: "Hepresentative in New Zealand for Gordon, Woodrofl'o find C 0.," for Burely it is in that capacity and not as ,i private citizen that Mr. Sandall writes. Prior to the -,war and the meat commandeer a number of English and colonial firms acted as meat brokers in New Zealand. They did not. buy meat from the fanner: they sold it for him on r commission of 2 per cent., and sometimes Broker A resold to Broker B, and even, it happened, that Broker B sold to Broker C before the meat reached the consumer market, and A, B, and C each charged 2 per cent. And this was good business.for the broker; also, of course, quite legitimate business. "iear in. year out, tho brokers between them earned, nt a low estimate, a quarter of a million sterling per annum for thus handling the Dominion's meat. Among those who bought from the brokers at tho London end were Armour and Company, of London, but, in 1916, Armour and Company of Australasia, Ltd., was incorporated and established itself hero as a New Zealand company under New Zealand law, paying New Zealand dues and taxes, but operating as many companies in New Zealand fortunately do, with American capital. Its object in doing so was to eliminate tho two pee centers and buy from the New Zealand farmer direct. Hence these tears! An agitation, judiciously fanned, has resulted in the refusal of a meat export license to Amour and Company, and some of the New Zealand farmers havo not yetfully awakened to tho fact- that, it is tlio | two per centers who are waggling tho fan! The Sheepowners' Union, however, is fully alive to'the situation, and they ought 'to be competent judges. In a pamphlet recently published by Armour and Company occurs this passage:— "Wo remind our readers of the saying: 'The greatest benefactor is he that can make two blades of g-rassjo grow where one grew before.' We amplify it with another: 'As great a benefactor Is ho that can make one middleman do where two did before.'" Tha/,1 is just what. Armour and Company are trying to do. Again: Hence theso teaxs! Mr. Sandall's assurance that the letter over his signature represents his hone6t individual opinion is, of course, acceptod without reservation. But one may bo permitted to comment upon his naivete. He suggests that Armour and Company In being refused an export license aro not thereby debarred from purchasing New Zealand meat for the American market. "You can have our meat," suggests Mr. Sandall with fine magnanimity, "by buying it from us; but we Will deliver it at your door," and, incidentally, "we will charge two per cent., plus freight, for "doing so." Of course, Armour and Company can buy New Zealand meat, c.i.f. or f.0.b,, without holding an export license. Equally, of course, the two per centers would like to oompel them to do so. but out of whoso pocket does the New Zealand farmer really think the two per cent, must come? Armour's huge turnover and perfected organisation enables them to pay the highest prico to the producer. 'I'he 108 sheep ovneTS wno have petitioned Parliament understand that; Mr. F. H. Sandall apparently can t —or won't. • „, Equally naive is Mr. Sandall 6 sugges. tion that "prior to the commandeer tho Dominion producer had unsurpassed freedom of action in regard to the disposal of his stock and enjoyed the keenest competition for it." So now, says Mr. Sandall the commandeer being lifted, tho way to restore that "unsurpassed freedom" and "keenest competition is to cut out one of tho largest competitors and single , that competitor out for refusal of a license. In other words, Mr. Sandall (representative in New Zealand of Gordon, Wood.roffo and Company) is affirm believer m "free competition," but by _ free competition" he means "competition free of Amour and Company.'^-I^etc, Member of Armour and Company of Australasia, Ltd. Chrislchurch, August 2, 1920.