THE MEAT TRUST

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 23, 22 October 1920, Page 8

THE MEAT TRUST

NO LICENSE FOR ARMOUR AND CO.

COMMITTEE MAKES ADVERSE REPORT

INTERESTING DEBATE IN THE HOUSE

The petition of H. D, Aclaud, of Christchurch, and 107 others, praying that a meat, export license should be issued to Armour and Co. of Australasia (Limited) was before the House of Representatives yesterday. Mr. G. Hunter (Waipawn) reported that the Agricultural and Stock Committee had considered the petition, and could not recommend that a license should be' issued to tho firm. In tho opinion of the committee, Armour and Company of Australasia were-a subsidiary company of Armour and Company of America, where it had been shown that they, together with other companies, had carried out practices inimical to the interests of botji the producer and tlie consumer

Mr.' G Forbes (Hurnnui) said that he did not think the refusal of the Government to issue a license to Armour and Company had been fully supported by the ofiicial evidence. The question was not whether the Meat Trust had been inimical to tho interests of tho producers in America, but whether or not tho extension of New Zealand's markots was desirable. Armour and Company desired to buy some of tho Dominion's excellent meat at good prices. Tho Government refused permission without giving a reason. • and now the committeo had endorsed the refusal, still without giving a reason. Tho decision Beemed to be bated on the report of an Amercaii Commission, which had reported ctrongly against the Meat Trust. But this trust, of which Armour and Company had been members, had been ended. That was not denied. Armour and Company had come to this country to trade in an open and above-board fashion, without any attempt at concealment. They had done business ill a way that was satisfactory, to the farmers, but now they had been refused a license. He considered that the attitude of the Government' was wrong. It was not in t'he interests of New Zealand trade to say that people who were prepared to do big business must not trade here. The farmers wanted to get some of their meat into tho American market, und Armour and s Co. were prepared to assist. Tho agitation against the American firm had not come from the farmers, but from the meat exporters, who feared that strong competition would force them to pay more for meat. Mr. Forbes argued that tho Government hnd absolute control of the meat trade, and need not fear any statement to crente ii "corner." The real monopolists were hen and companies now r-ngagfd in the export trade. Armour and Co. had done bisiness in accordance with American law, and'th'ey were prepared to obey tho New Zealand laws. The producers were entitled to know why tho license had been refused. Tho Government's position was unsound and could not .be maintained. The producers _ would not allow tlfcimsolves to be hoodwinked. They had been given a lot of ex parte arguments by ■ interested parties, but the meetings of farmers at which resolutions irimlbrsinjr tho Government's attitude had btieni passed! had not heard both sides of the case. The bogey of the American Meat Trust had been raised, but when the farmers realised the facts ttey would not tolerate the restriction of competition in tho interests of tho people now in the export trade.

North Auckland Experience. , •^ r - V. H. Reed (Bay of Islands) said ho had always been a strong opponent of the Meat Trust and lie realised its dangers. But lie could not seo the wisdom of the report. _ Armour and Co. were doing business in the open at the present time. The refusal of a license would simply drive them underground, • n.;d force them to trade by indirect methods, which would not be easily controlled. The Americans could not prevented buying New Zealand meat. He wns strongly of opinion that the Meat Trust constituted n danger to the farmers. But the Government was not dealing with the danger in tho right way. A very important point was to prevent any foreign capital, being invested in the freezing companies. Another point was to niake sure that the trust did not got any transport advantages or rebates. The Americans would not be in.- n position to competa unfairly os long as the freezing works were locally controlled-. His -own distinct had realised the danger of trust activities The only freezing works in his district wera controlled by Vestoy Brothers, who were just'as big a menace as the American Meat Trust This firm had driven all other buyers out of the district by refusing them freezing facilities. It had paid the farmers lower prices than obtained in other 'districts. He quoted in illustration the action of the firm in refusing to pay more than .£l9 for a certain bullock in the Bay of Islands district. The owner 6ent the animal to. Auckland, where the same firm .bought it for .£26 shipped it back to their works. l r et Vestey Brothers had been allowed' to acquire freezing works in other parts of the country, and they would extend their operations if they were not 6ubjeoted to restrictions. Trust methods undoubtedly were a peril to tho producers. But the refusal of a license would not keep out the Meal: Trust. The Americans would do their business indirectly. The better course would bo to issue a lioense and maintain control

Trust Methods. | Mr. R. Masters (Stratford) said that tho petition sent to the House on behalf of Armour and Company had been signed by a more handful of big farmere. It. had not represented the views of tho general body of the producers. Armour and Company of New Zealand was a subsidiary company- to Armour and. Company of Chicago There was 110 doubt at all on that point Mr. J. Ogden Armour, of Chicago, had provided nearly all the capital. The New Zealand firm, therefore, was a branch of the Meat Trust. Mr. 'Masters proceeded.to quote from reports made in the Cnifed States on the operations of tho Meat Trust. The practice of the trust had been to suppress competition and pay its own prices for stock. That theso operations had been highly inimical to tho interests of the producers and tho people had been shown by the fact that the Federal Government had thought it necessary to prohibit the operations of the trust in tho United States. Mr. Masters referred to the successful efforts of the trust to establish a virtual monopoly of tho Argentine meat trade, to the great disadvantage of the producers. The Moat Trust had been shown to control 98 por cent, of the poultry, 95 per cent, of the butter, 91 per cent, of the cheese, and 97 per cent, of the eggs put 011 the market in the United States. The Government had been forced to interfere for tho protection of the people, and the members of the New Zealand; Parliament ought to be,very careful indeed about allowing a brnnch of such a combine tion to operate in tbis country. Mr. Reed: They cannot control tho railways. Mr. Masters added that if Armour ana Company wore licensed, tile Government could' not refuse the 6ame concession' to Swift and Company and other trust, firatg. Ha referred to tho virtual cor nering of the American rice market by tho trust, with the result that prices advanced 60 per cent. Mr. Jennings (Waitomo): That has been all stopped. Tlia trust is broken up. Mr, Massey: It is not abolished now. There is plenty of it going on yet. Mr. Masters objected strongly to tho trust being given an opportunity to establish itself in this country. The Dominion should be warned by American experience. The Government's View. The Hon. W. Nosworthy (Minister 0' Agriculture) said that tho member f-v. tho Bay of Islands had advocated llifa introduction of Armour and Company into the Dominion when Vestey JJrw. were already here, and were admitted bv the member to bo using trust methods. The Government in' Amerioa had

made an attempt to drive the "Big Five" out of the United States, and they were working from theio into British yotsses6ions like Australia and New Zealand, and "going underground." The Government had to be consistent, and it was. against the Meat Trust in every shape and form.

Mr. Wilford: What about Veste.vs? Mr. Noswortby, continuing, said, that Ye&tey Bros.' turn would come if * the Government found them to bo acting as a meat trust. Armour and Company had never had a license taken' away from them, but an export license under the Act of 1918 had been refused them. Mr. Forbes had asked the reason for the refusal That was not far to seek, if members perused . tho. report of th© Fedoral Trade Commission of the United States. It was principally upon that report that he and his predecessor had based their refusal of a license. The Minister read extracts from tho report, 'and also read to tho House the decree that was issued in Washington in consequence of tho report. Under the decree the defendants and each of them either as a corporation or individuals' are compelled in brief: (1) To sell under the supervision of the United States District Court, preferably to livestock producers and the public, all their holdings in public stockyards. (2) To sell' under the same supervision and in like manner all their interests in stockyard railroads aim terminals. . (3) To sell under the Same supervision and in like maimer all their interest# in market newspapers. , . U) To dispose of all their interests in public cold storage warehouse,? w«pt as necessary for their own meat products. ,'5) To for ever dissociate themselves with all unrelated lines, including wholesale groceries, fresh, canned, dried, or salt fish, fresh, canned or dried vegetables fresh, crushed, driod, evaporated, or MMd fruits, confectioneries, syrups, soda water fountain supphos, etc., molasses, honey, jams nnd J£®' 6erves, sauces and relishes, etc., coffee, tea, chocolate, cocoa; flour, sugar rice, and cereals (with an exception), bread, wafers, crackers, biscuits, spaghetti, vermicelli, marconi, cigare, china, furnitU (GV To'for'-ever abandon the use ot their branch houses, road cars, and auto trucks, comprising their distribute system, for any other than their-own meat nnd dairy products. . (7) To perpetually submit to tho jurisdiction of the United States District Court under an injunction forbidding all the defendants from directly or directly maintaining any combination oi conspiracy' with each other or any othei person or persons, or monopolising or attempting to monopolise any food »roduct in tho United States or indulging in any unfair or unlawful practices. So far as the petition that the committee had reported upon concerned, it was signed by the owners of only some 300,000 sheep out of tho 23 or 24 million sheep in the country. Most of the signatories were in Canterbury, one or two were m Hawkos Bay, and several were in. tho Auckland province. Ho did not think that anybody could honestly say that the petition was a very big one, ronsi(lering the proportion, of the signatories to.the number of the sheep owners in the Domm10pr. Thacker: About, one-third will bo eX ne e Minister assented, thought that when the Government of the United S tiad dealt as it had done with the people under discussion, Hie CTOveniment of New Zealand was justified in. the attitude it had taken up. Ho wished. \o point out that ic had come out m evidence that Armour and Gompanj of Au. Iralasia were a subsidiary company to Armour and Company, of i America. Tho firm was working on American capital an it appeared to have a practically - limited overdraft. The danger tho possibility that a firm mi?ht cany on business in this country ■ «ilUi • ' tal that the country .might find hostile to its interests, as had been Me case with the trust in America, He did not wish to cast any reflection on the n.anasrer of the Company in question. Ho (the Minister) was dealing under an Act ■of Parliament with a position that reduired the gravest attention of the Go - ernment. It was possible for nuns, to be started in New Zealand under a simple and common name, and witli next to no capital, but with the backing such 'people as Cudaliy, Wilson, Armour nnd Company, or any other such firm. The Government of tho country M to guard against any danger to the piodueen. and to see that the control of tha freezing and handling of meat wa* kept in their hands. It must not increase the risks that the producers rim of big firms or combines getting in be hind their backs. The thing was. to eliminate foreign,' interests that might be working a.qainst the! interests of the producers, and to link lip gradually with the markets of the Old County, whiqh has been the best- for the Dominion in the past, and, ho ventured to say, wou.d be the best in the future.

Sales of Lamb to the States,

The prospects with regard to lamb in the United States wero not so bright now as they had appeared some little thne ago. In diverting Isew Zealand lamb to the United States instead of sending 'it to London, tho producers would"bo doing away with the means of facilitating the sale of the mutton that went to the Old Country -Ihe lamb was needed at Home to enable the ewe and wether mutton to be disposed of to the best advantage, and if Arraoiu and Company were allowed to sweep all the lamb out of this country the producers would be leaving themselves with a bare -market. They would be sending the worst to London, and sending the Vst to America, -and the means of inducing the British consumer to take New Zealand mutton would be entirely gone. Ho complimented Mr. Masters upon having realised the danger that threatened the country. Mr D. Jones (Ivaiapoi) Baul.it was quite unfair to say that the desire that a license should b? granted uas shared by so small a number of eheepfarmers aV tho Minister had represented. The petition had been hurnwlly drawn up so that the House should investigate an important question. Tho debate was interrupted by tho dinner adjournment. The Prime Minister stated that an opportunity for its completion would be given at a later date. >

PREVENTING PRODUCTION

TAIUNAKI MEMBER SUGGESTS PENALTIES. Published statements alleging that certain men had prevented or persuaded tlio miners at Pukemiro from returning to work when tlie.v were prepared to do so were referred to. the notice of the Minister of Labour yesterday afternoon by Mr. 0. J. Hawken (Egmont),. who asked if the Government would introduce legislation to prevent that sort of thing, and to make it an offence to advise or persuade a. man working as aj producer on the land or in the mines to ceaso production. Sir William Herrie9 said that he had no knowledge of any intimidation such as appeared to be implied by the paragraph on which the (juestion was based. He would niako inquiries. He believed that the law at present was sufficient to copo with intimidation. In any case it was a very difficult thing to prove. Mr H. E. Holland (Buller): Why not send the member for Egmont up to find Mr I'. Fraser (Wellington Central): Following up tho last question, will the Minister also introduce legislation preventing tho victimisation of the workers. Sir William Herries: I think that had better go on the Order Paper. (Laughter.)

RIMUTAKA DEVIATION

SURVEY STILL PROMISED. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) osked the Minister of Public Works in tho House yesterday what steps had been taken to iulfil the promise made to i, Wairarapa deputation regarding the survey of tliu Rimutaka deviation. "I do not know that ? can tell the honourable member that the work is under way,' said the Minister in reply. "As u matter of fact it is not. But I can assure him that the promise made will be observed as soon as there are engineers free to carry out tho survey requited."