DISTRUSTING THE TRUSTS.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 639, 7 June 1921, Page 6

DISTRUSTING THE TRUSTS.

Armour and Co., Ltd., of Chicago, are very indignant that the ActingPrime Minister, Sir Francis Bell, should refuse to be coerced into sanctioning the evasion of the Dominion’s .Trust regulations. Their friends declare that the company is an innocent commercial enterprise, more philanthropic in its policy than otherwise. Indeed, a prominent Christchurch journal is hotly denouncing the Government for daring to restrict the activities of a combination that paid no less a dividend than 114 per cent, in 1916. The same journal published an article last year that was feeb’y bespattered with superlatives, recommending the farmers of the Dominion to give Armour and Co. a very cosy place a their firesides. This article was then sent to every paper

in New Zealand, even including such a one as the Times, in the hope that it wow'd be republished ins omc form or other. Unhappily for the success of tP is litt'e scheme, we bad not forgotten that at an investigation of Meat Trust methods, ordered by President Wilson in 1917, a representative of Armour and Co. frankly aci-

ni tt°d that the company bad spent | no'-m’y n mil'b'n dollars in an effort j to e.reat“ nub’ic seatimerit in.favour eft he Hence it is that we

looked askance at this subtle attempt to spread pogaganda throughout the Dominion, calculated to lure the farmers into the belief that this member of “The Big Five” is different from other Yankee organisations, inasmuch as its chief object is not the almighty dollar. It is very significant that the American Fovernment has addressed a rather truculent protest to the New Zealand Government, fo; it indicates that “The Big Five” have succeeded with President Harding, where they failed with his greater predecessor. Wisely or unwisely. New Zealand refuses to allow the Trusts to operate in its markets except under certain restrictions, and

ns these are embodied in the Statute Book, it would be wilful breach of tiust if Sir Francis Bell did not insist on their observance. It is greatly to his credit that he has answered in language that is as explicit and firm as it is diplomatic.