Wool Profit.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 May 1922, Page 4

Wool Profit.

GdtOW FILS’ CLAIM. WANGANUI. May 8. ( “Havin'.' given consideration to the question mill read carefully the correspondence and cablegrams I think that the Government is right in infoiniing l lie Fanners’ Union that it cannot see its way to consent to a friendly suit being brought against the Imperial Government, in connexion with the commandeered wool profits,” said Mr \V. J. .Poison, Dominion President of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union in an interview on the subject. Mr Pcison added : “The correspondence sets out the argument between the Imperial and New Zealand Governments as to whether each of the three contract's should he treated separately, hut does not deal specifically with William Milne and others as, to differences between London and New Zealand values. The argument of the British authorities, however, seems to dispose of both contentions. After looking through bulky Parliamentarian papers one is struck by the fact that Mr Massey has left no stone unturned to obtain everything possible for Now Zealand wool.glowers, while it throws much fresh light upon the Imperial viewpoint and gives one more sympathy with the latter. It looks, judging from the initial let- I ter I rum the War Office as if the Lon- 1

dun vi!iiics meant to he offered as a basis, phis <3O per cent.” After reviewbig the. earlier correspondence at length Mr poison so id that a cable was sent to Mr Massey in London by the Acting Premier, after a large conference of wool-growers, stating that the conference had unanimously decided to accept the offer of the Imperial Government lor wool 55 per cent, in advance ol the JOl.l-14 prices of all grades of wool. That cable constituted the basis ol n bargain, and it, was qilite evident that no question of London or New Zealand values ,\vas raised. Jt,,was important to note that in the schedule in the Gazette notice requisitioning wool, issued a month later, inline was given that the appendix should be taken as representing the average price of various .classes of wool, “as Sqhl.,>ff unction in New Zealand in the mouth of January, IS)M. “in fact,” Mr Poison went on to say, "tile impression left on one’s mind, after reading the history of the first wool contract, is that while no reference was made to New Zealand and London prices, the former were in the minds of whoever di lifted the schedule.” The correspondence then goes on to deal with the 1017-18 contract, and . eventually the third contract from 1010 onwards, and it is notable only for the intervention ol Mr Massey, modifying the contract the result being to safeguard the New Zealand bonus from being materially lower than tile Australian, owing to larger proportion of crossbred wool used for military purposes on which no profit would accrue. After dealing with the remaining correspondence, Mr Poison expresses himself r.s satisfied that the Government is doing the right thing in not taking n ny step.