FARM IMPLEMENT PRICES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2312, 3 October 1908, Page 1

FARM IMPLEMENT PRICES.

MR. HARDY CHALLENGED

ACTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION.

Tho statements recently made by Mr C. A. C. Hardy, ALP., in regard to the farm implement industry wore mentioned at last. mooting of tho Canterbury Industrial Association by Mr IV. W. Charters. Mr Chartors said that most of tho mombors would doubtless have scon tho statements mado by Mr Hardy, that tho implement makers were exploiting tho farmers, and were charging ISO i ,or cent more than the manufacturers in Australia. Mr Hardy had sinco mado a correction, and stated that it was 50 per cent, but in any case ho did not think that a statement of tho kind should be allowed to go unchallenged. After Mr Hardy’s statement in tho House of Representatives, documentary evidence had been brought to disprove it, but in spito of that Mr Hardy had repeated his statements, and had gone further, making an assertion that local manufacturers wore charging for a plough catalogued at £25 10s as much as £3O, and that ho held an invoico in his hand for that amount. Ho thought that the Association should ask Mr Hardy to produco that invoice. Mr Hardy wanted tho farmers to believe that tho local charge'was £3O, but there wero ploughs arid ploughs, ,and, if Mr Hardy liked, he could get one nickelplated, or with golden handles, at any price ho liked. But the invoico, he thought, was wrong, if it was for an ordinary three-furrow plough. Another misstatement made by Mr Hardy was that local manufacturers were unable to charge an exorbitant price on account of the Agricultural Implement Manufacture and Sale Control Act. He could givo an unqualified denial to the statement that the Act had done anything for local manufacturers. In the Act certain prices were scheduled, and in the schedule three-furrow ploughs were fixed at £25 10s. In connection with the actual value of a New Zealand plough compared with an American plough, he had been recently shown a letter from a gentleman in South Africa who" had stated that he was thoroughly satisfied with the ploughs made in New Zealand, and preferred them in every way to tho American, which were soon on the scrap heap. He had ordered three, and had said that he was quite prepared t 0 pay 50 per cent more for them. The troiiblo was that there was no communication, and the trade had fallen through. Ho moved that Mr Hardy should bo requested to furnish the Association with a copy of the invoice so_ that the truth of his statement might be cleared up. Mr J. Maddren seconded tho motion.

Mr F. Cooper said thatjie did not think it was always wise for .a manufacturer to talk about implements, hut Mr Hardy had made statements that could do no possible good, and might do a lot of harm, .and, as he represented a Canterbury constituency, he should realise his responsibility before making statements of that nature. Personally lie did not think that Mr Hardy’s statements had a great deal of weight—-(laugh-ter) —at any rate among thoso that knew him; but thero wore who did not know him, and put more weight on his statements than they deserved. It was quite easy for Mr Hardy to get an implement catalogue, and discover that, say. a disc harrow in Australia cost £l2 10s and in New Zealand £2O, out ho could also find that there were somo in Australia at £2O. What did Mr Hardy’s statements prove? He said that in Australia an American machine could he bought for very little money, implying that they were cheaper than in New Zealand. America had the highest protective tariff in the work], and in America the ortide was made cheaply. It was imported into Australia', where thorn was also a high protective tariff, and was also sold cheaply thero. Was not Air Hardy proving that a. high protective tariff reduced the cost of the article, and why did ho not advocate it in New Zealand, where there was no protection for farm implements? It showed. that a place with a protective tariff could import a cheap article and sell it cheaper than a place where there was no tariff. Air Hardy in his public capacity as a membor of Parliament had made a statement that was not substantiated, and had shown an unwarranted bias against an industry. He should withdraw, and not aggravate his statements, if not by mis-statements, then by selected illustrations.

The chairman (Mr-F. E. Julies) said that Mr Charters was deserving of the thanks of the Association for bringing the matter up. Mr Cooper said that Mr Hardy had referred to a body of New Zealand manufacturers in a derogatory maimer as a trust, yet by his very action > he was himself upholding one of the biggest trusts in the world. A member: A branch of the Standard Oil Trust. The motion was carried.