ARMOUR AND CO.’S LICENSE.

Shannon News, 16 September 1921, Page 3

ARMOUR AND CO.’S LICENSE.

LOQAL FARMER'S OPINION. The petition in favour of granting an export license to Armour and Co. is being largely signed in Canterbury. It Is stated that only about two per cent of the farmers who have been' approached have refused to sign. The above matter was mentioned to a well - known breeder In this district by a News reporter yesterday. The fanner stated that he had very good authority for saying that such concerns as Armour’s were making much better offers for lamb than the ordinary export freezing companies. “If they are willing to pay more,” he said, “let them have their license, because if there is anything that wil llift the present depression in the sheep trade it is better prices and a larger inflow of money.” ‘He added that this opinion was supported by other breeders lie knew- of. They recognised that their business was right up against it and if some relief could be-got by the operations of the American concern, it should be availed of. If there was any sentiment about the matter it should he dropped when it was a case of sink or swim, and he thought that was the condition of a majority of sheep farmers at present. A London cable yesterday says the Pall Mall Gazette gives prominence to what it describes as “New Zealand’s sensational hold-up of meat,” and publishes details of the dispute between New Zealand and the “Big Five,” based,on statements by Armour’s representatives. The Pall Mali Gazette says that several hundreu thousand sheep and lambs are lying rotting in the storehouses In Christ church instead of being sent to the markets.

Mr \v. i. carney, Armour’s representative in Chrisienureh, gives the staiement an absolute denial. As a matter ol fact, about 350-000 carcases were in store in New Zealand, but these were only from the -Rilling 01 the season just ended, and it wouid be ridiculous to say that in such a short tune the frozen meat was perishing. This meat had accumulated in the ireezing stores since the Minister ol Customs, acting under an unrepealed provision of the War Regulations Act, had refused Armours a permit to export meat. “We hope,” he said, “when Mr Massey returns to New Zealand that things wil he straightened out to the satisfaction of everybody.” Mr A. ( D. McLeod, M.P., who voted against Armour and Co. in 1920 because, as he says, he did not believe in trusts, now writes as follows to a Masterton paper: “The following is what I hear on every hand: That last season the companies opened prices at a high level so that their large friends might benefit, while at the end of the season, when lifting small farmers’ stock, prices were unduly lowered, to recoup companies against early losses. Another statement Is that companies are now offering a low figure for meat, so that the new season prices can begin on a low basis. It is stated that Wellington companies which were giving 4d Tor wether mutton in July and August, have now reduced the figure to a little over 3d, although talow and wool have gone up.” Mr McLeod also says: “There is undoubtedly a widespread soreness amongst farmers with our meat freezing companies which, if not checked or explained, will certainly end in the admission*of Armours.”