AMERICAN MEAT TRUST MENACE.

Taihape Daily Times, 12 June 1919, Page 5

AMERICAN MEAT TRUST MENACE.

(To the Editor) Sir,—l have read with interest Mr Timbs’ letter in your paper of the sth inst., on above subject, and’, without claiming any professional experience in the meat trade, I would like to comment on a few points of his proposals to combat this menace. His first proposal is; an export duty 1011 meat not shipped to B'rit:ain. Now, in my opinion, this tax would be an absolute “dead letter,” as the Meat Trust has practically no objection’ to shipping to Britain and using our m'eca.t to capture British trade, and in any case, the meat could be transhipped from Britain for less than the tax proposed. The second point :is the forming :of a distributing company to handle the ‘entire output of New Zealand meet and bye-products, such company to be controlled by the New Zealand freezing compani'es, according to output. Now, in my opinion, a company of this kind, free from all Government control, would get the 'immediate and hearty Support of the Meat Trust it.Seli’,.for it would only then be necessary for the Trust to get a controlling interest, either directly or indirectly, in a few of the larger freezing works, and it would hold our entire -output in the hollow of its hand. It is well to remember that there are firms professedly New Zealand. or British that work in close connection with Meat Trust firms. If Mr Timbs had had only a little experience in trying to organise freezing companies into adopting a common policy, he would realise that without Government compulsion such a company is practically impossible, at least, in time to be of effective service to the producers of‘ this country. "

I_ agree that our politicians are not magicians, but, on" the contrary,war'e very human, and, consequently, very liable to be influenced by public opinion. That’ being so, it ill becomes? anyone, who has the Welfare of the producers. of this country at heart,‘ to‘ belittle the sentiment that Farmers’ Union and others are fostering, re trading with the Meat Trust and their agents. We all realise that this sentiment. alone will not give us adequate protection, but it is the strongest argument that the producers of this country can use to induce the Government to give us the necessary protection which, sooner or later, I believe, must take the form of some sort of Government control. » . Mr Timbs mentions the wealth and business ability of the firms composing the Meat Trust, but advises the farmers of New Zealand to squeeze them. Personally, I don ’t. think these firms are going to be squeezed for anything. At anyrate, if we go .a-wooing in this fashion, knowing the Meat. Trust as we do, what. right will we have to complain if the marriage brings a nieaspre of home rule that not ‘quite ‘so acceptable to us as the gifts of courtship‘? It is true, we might desert our partner, or get the State to give us a divorce, But that would not give us back our dowry.

I believe the ‘Meat Trust menace is simply this: That if these firms can get control of sufficient of our produce in New Zealand to capture the trade in Britain, then I doubt if the people of this country would he prepared T 0 stancl the loss involved in fighting them. There «are plenty of British firms trying to hold our market in Britain against their American rmmnmfitorisu and I believe our best policy is to supply these firms through New Zealand Fneezing Companies until such time as public opinion is sufficiently advanced to make some scheme of control from this end possible; but I fail to see how trading with the American firms will tend to bring about any such scheme, Government or 'otherwise.——l am, ets., D. G. GORDON.