Untitled

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3558, 4 December 1882, Page 2

The news from Melbourne concerning the loss of £3000 as the result of the operations of the Australian Frozen Meat Company gives a note of warning to those engaged in the same trade in this colony. Some weeks ago, commenting on the formation of a " Sheepfarmers' " Meat Export Company in this district, we stated it as our opinion that there was no hurry for Hawke's Bay to enter into this new trade. We inclined to the belief tbat there was much to be learned from the experiments and the failures of others, and we deprecated anything like haste in the formation of a company on the mere strength of the success attending a few shipments of frozen meat. We also referred at the time to the cargo forwarded by the ship Dunedin, and pointed out that, it the value of the 700 carcases that had almost to be thrown away during the course of loading that vessel had been deducted from the sale returns of the shipment, the account would not have appeared so satisfactory. To what the losses of the Australian Meat Company may be due we cannot say. It may be to injudicious purchases of the live stock, to extravagant or careless management, or to the breaking down of the refrigerating machinery on board or on shore. We must await the arrival of the Melbourne papers for this information. In the meantime the Hawke's Bay Meat Export Company has the comforting assurance, that the success of their operations does not depend on any freezing process—that, in fact, the refrigeration of meat is only an adjunct of its business. In reference to thisjsubject it might be well to consider whether, after all, boiling-down would not pay better in the long run than exporting the carcases in a frozen state. The methods employed of utilising the carcase at the To'moana works appear to be the best calculated to secure the utmost value-nothing is wasted, and there is no risk.

We have received the first annual report, balance-sheet, and schedule of lauds of the New Zealand Land Settlement Company, and we can make neither bead nor tail of them. A dividend of eight per cent, is declared out of an apparent profit of £10,129 12s 3d. The schedule of properties belonging to the shareholders shows lands of the estimated value of £167,893, for which £28,424 have been paid, and on which £07,788 are owing. The profits realised (?) on the acquisition of these lands are set down as £47,786 to the natives, and £23,893 to the company. We have omitted shillings and pence. Thus, for an expenditure of £28,424, profits have been realised to the amount of £71,679, but there are liabilities in the shape of payments due on these lauds of £67,788. Further we notice that, iucluded in the estimated value of property belonging to the company is £5000 worth of properties

under negotiation of purchase, on which > £3,669 have been paid and £500 are owing, yet, out of this transaction a profit is shown to the natives of £553, and to the company of £276. All this is doubtless as clear as possible to everybody concerned, but it presents a conundrum to us that we do not care to unravel.