The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1917. STATE CONTROL OF MARKETS.

Taihape Daily Times, 2 November 1917, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times. A ND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1917. STATE CONTROL OF MARKETS.

(With which is incorporated The Taihape Post and Waimarino News).

Without plunging into any contro- ! yersy for. or . against State,, control of : the marketing of primary one' : can well take- a -stand against. '.the j present methods of marketing, New Zealand, meaj;, There,is now;no question about this country's surplus meat having fallen into 'the clutches of the Meat Trust, for, after taking exhaustive evidence, a Parliamentary Commission have reported that Trust operations are fully proven, they have described the Trust's methods and have recommended ways and means for freeing our meat trade from their operations. There is much to disappoint in the way in which the Government is handling this fearful parasitic curse. Farmers are asked what it matters to them where their meat goes to so long as they are paid the price they contracted to sell at, but that is an attitude too audacious to come under the cloven, hoof category. Growers are unanimously satisfied with their arrangement with the Gov- j ernment, but they have enough of the business instinct to know that there is somthing unjust, dishonest and dangerous in the intermediate profits levied by men or organisations whose . services are neither wanted, useful or necessary. Farmers and all those who enter into the question are told by the Government that it is a difficult matter to deal with, but we would urge that there are other primary products, the selling prices of which are controlled, and are entirely eliminated from the parasitic element that did hang barnacle like, taking a toll of considerable magnitude therefrom. Wool unquestionably presents a much more complex difficulty than ever mea.t can in the matter of price-control, owing to the additional hands and processes it has to go through. Government hands the wool out to Spinners at a fixed price, and compels the Spinners to sell to the Manufacturers at a fixed price. With meat, our Government seems to think, the authorities can only hand it out to the Meat Trust, then leave those vultures to do what they like with it. The Trust is not essential in the marketing of meat as are the Spinners in wool, and yet the price the essential Spinner must sell at is fixed absolutely, while nothing can be done in limiting the greed', of the non-essentiab. Meat Trust. Meat is handed put to a crew who, with their millions, have

secured control of all meat for civil

ian consumption, reaching England from all parts of the world,, to extort what they like before passing it on to those who sell it to the people. They have complete control of pricemaking at the marketing end, and it is'posi tively certain that if the people of this country do nothing in the way as urged ''by ,the Meat Commission ;in Parliament the other day, these men cannot be prevented from having complete control of pricemaking at the producing end. Government tells producers that it is a knotty problem; there is no trouble about nobbling the producing end, but they cannot get rid of the curse that comes between the British authorities and the suppliers to the people. They have negotiated a much greater and more complex difficulty with wool, but meat is too much for them. We have every cause to suspect that something is awry with the ethical aspect of this question; the red-herring of assurance that the British Government is making no profit out of our meat is ever suspiciously too ready. Why does not the British Government make something out of our meat, just as well as out of our wool? No producer minds what pro fit the British Government makes so long as his remuneration is not affected one way or the other, and no meat producer has ever complained about what Government made out of his requisitioned meat. Then why the sickening repetition of assurance? It can only be regarded as what it is', a red-herring crossing the scent of the Trust trail. Last year the British Government made a saving of thitreen million pounds sterling in controlling colonial wool, why should they not make similar profits on colonial meat which they now hand out to the Meat Trust just as they hand out wool to tlie Spinners, at a fixed priee, only ] that the Spinner must sell the yarn made from the wool at a fixed price while full power is given the Meat Trust to dishonestly and disgustingly exploit? The British Government reports, officially, that they made thirteen millions out of commandeered colonial wool, but not a single woolgrower uttered one word against it. The thirteen millions were made by eliminating Trust methods; the State sold to the Spinner with a mandatory that he should sell to the r Manufacturer at a certain price. Why not make another thirteen millions by making precisely similar arrangement with respect to meat? We know all about the old gag, that we are. .d G P cn dent, .upon the Meat Trust for meat that we do not produce, but now that America is a partner in the war it is, npt believable that some arrangement cannot be made with tho 'American Government for supplying meat for armies at a reasonable price without exacting a license to rob and J plunder the British people by demanding control" of alb British Empire meat as'well. Thb ! British Government issued a most remarkable document setting forth the advantages of State Control, and.' they instanced, the thirteen millions being saved oh wool under State Control methods. We would suggest that Our producers have lost nothing by the State Control of or by the one-ended control of their meat. Where State Control has failed them is in its partial nature, and we venture to ask our farmers what they think would have happened to them if Meat Trusts, instead of the Government, had controlled meat in New Zealand as well as in England? We leave them to ponder over this aspe«t of the question, and ? » go on to ask whether another thirteen millions could not have been saved by State Control of the shipping that carries their meat and, wool to market? The document issued by the British Government in favour of State Control of primary products is exceedingly instructive, an eye-opener to the enormous advantages to the producer and the ■ State of State Control. In the past parasites have fastened upon what farmers produce and have, like common robbers, dishonestly acquired vested interests therein, and it is these vested interests Governments hesitate to interfere with. The ice has been broken in the case of wool, why cannot it be cracked even with the simpler proposition of meat? Many millions arc being made out of New Zealand meat at the selling end, and surely we are not so mentally imbecile as not to realise that so soon as the Trust can control this end similar profits will be exacted here. Mr. Massey and Sir Joseph Ward admit the Trust curse, and they say they are endeavouring to bring about State Control at the selling end as well as at the buying. In the meantime what are some farmers doing? They arc doing their utmost to render futile the efforts of the Government they have elected as the best and most reliable men to look after their interests. They are encouraging the Trust their Government is fighting and trying to eliminate. Like silly fish they seize the bait that Trusts are dangling amongst them. There is an explanation v ''for all trading phenomena, and we would ask what explains the accumulating millions and mil'iions of money in the coffers of Meat Trusts?

A few simple words furnish a com-i

plete answer; the Trusts control the selling prices of meat, and so soon as ever they ca:: control the buying prices. they will accumulate millions more with increased rapidity. State control of wool has benefited the State to the extent of thirteen millions, why fool about with Trusts respecting meat? Why not save thirteen millions on meat and another thirteen millions on freights, why not?