FARM AND GARDEN.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 348, 29 March 1911, Page 2

FARM AND GARDEN.

NEW ZEALAND BUTTER. When the National Dairy Association of New Zealand, Ltd, entered into an arrangement with a London dairy produce firm to secure the handling the butter and cheese outputs of the companies subscribing to its cooperative marketing scheme, one of the baits held out by the selected firm to secure the handsome connection of the association was that it would spend a large sum of money in advertising New Zealand butter in Britain. Recently a cablegram appeared in the daily press of the Dominion stating that the front page of one issue of the London ''Daily Mail" had been occupied by an advertisement for New Zealand butter. At first blush it looked as though the agents of the National Dairy Association were commencing their promised campaign. The facts of the case are now to hand, and they certainly disclose a very interesting position. During the first w.?eks of Januray the association's agents had been advertising New Zealand butter in the "Daily Mail." Then to the surprise of everyone in the trade another firm filled the whole front page of the "Mail" with an advertisement of New Zealand butter, which included a map of the Dominion showing the principal dairying centres. It appears that the second firm, hearing that their rivals contemplated having a full-page advertisement in the "Mail," got one in before them. The first firm, not to be outdone, had a full page the following week, their idea being to have a sort of "New Zealand butter day" all over the country. Their idea was to secure the co-opera-tion of grocers throughout Great Britain who should show New Zealand butter in their windows as a specialty on the same day on which their names would appear in the advertisement on the front page of the "Mail." It is said that some of the large London stores immediately received increased inquiries for New Zealand butter as the result of the advertisements. The advertising rivalry is most amusing. The firm which acted the part of a philanthropist is a large speculating firm which has been dealing largely in New Zealand butter in the past, and is said to have made a little fortune during the brief period in the 1007-S season when the price of New Zealand butter soared to 150s. Naturally the firm in question is not going to see New Zealand butter sold on a straight-out consignment basis if it can prevent it, and that chiefly through an opposition firm. Thus even if the association's scheme fails to succeed in its present form it will certainly have served a very useful purpose, even if it has only secured the advertising campaign to advance the interests of New Zealand butter.

IMPLEMENT TRUST. The Dominion President of the Farmers' Union, Mr James G. Wilson, had been asked by the Taranaki executive of the union if he thought the Monopoly Prevention Act had been benecfiial to the farming community. Mr Wilson has made the folllowing reply : "The Harvester Trust was a danger. How great it is very difficult to say. They did threaten our implement trade, which was defeated by the Act to some extent. The trade may have used the Trust as a lever to get assistance, and it is certain they increased thier price and more or less assumed the position of a trust themselves, by combining not to sell below list prices. The Act enabled the Farmers' Union to have some insight into trade matters through its representative. I have never yet been able to say definitely whether the farmer ha 3 gained or no. A trust by its power of money behind it might wipe out little implement makers, and that would be a serious thing for the country. But we know that farmers on certain lands find the American drills perfectly suit their purpose at a first cost. It really amounts to this, which is the greater danger? Allow the Harvester Trust to monopolise trade and then have the farmer in their power—but during the process of competition the farmer would be the gainer, posssibly, however, at the expense of the capital of the implement maker —or in the danger of protection to a trade which has fur its object the raising of the price against the farmer, the worse of the two. The farmer must set his face against any trust. Which is the worst? I am not able to give an opinion as to the monopoly Prevention Act's ultimate effect. But it is certain that sve as farmers must resist any further protection to a trade which was successful for many years without any further protection than the cost of importation and the stupidity of the English niakres who would not make implements to suit us. Until further evidence is forthcoming I should say: 1. Leave the Monopoly Prevention Act on the statute book until we have clear proof that it is inimical to farmers' interests. For if it were repealed it would only be by the Trust entering again into a cutting market that implements would be lowered in price. 2. Resist to the utmost any attempt to increase the tariff, and if necessary, threaten to ask for the repeal of the Monopoly Prevention Act if the demand for the increased tariff' is continued."