ARMOUR AND CO.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3368, 22 December 1919, Page 2

ARMOUR AND CO.

_..__‘,_.__ . OPERATIONS IN NEW’ ZEALAND. , NOT “OUT OF BUSINESS.” ,' CHRls'r-e:Hlrßen._. Dec. 19. Although it has been announced that rthe Government has refused Armour ' allfl CO.. of .~‘\_llst.;'.-:i'3.Sia. Ltd., a license E cording to Mr \V. Irving Carney, mun- ; aging ~directo:' of the company, tliis re- ‘ fnsal was due to the ‘fact that the ImEperial purchase contract was still in f force. Meat was shipped axvay by the Imperial Government, and inst 133. any private firm. There was nothing to prevent the firm operating at ~,m»_ sent, as purchasers of stock, and it ; was not, as had been stated. “out of business.” I ‘E Mr Carney informed ‘J. Sun reprefit necessary that any person, firm, or icompany exporting meat from New iZealand should have a meat export ,license. The Minister of Agriculture, ‘having power to grant or refuse any ~ such application as he saw fit, applicaition was made by the company for :1 & license in the ordinary way, just as it. had complied with all other necessary requil’ements of the law. The Hon. W. D. MacDonald (then Minister of Agriculture) wrote to the company in reply: “I regret to inform you that I canno't grant this’ license.” The ,Minister.wrOte further: “Please note 1 that Crown Law Officers have advised that, so long as the existing contract ! between the New Zealand Government acting ‘on behalf of the Ivrnpei-ial. GovlC‘l‘llll‘.€‘lll' and freezing companies, for the purchase of meat remains ‘in force i it is not neces:~=s.r_*; for a person -or firm ‘ in business ! hold 3 license.” In view of the deciI sion of the Crown Law oiiicers, that no t license was necessary, and*that no ‘firm lof meat exporters holds a license, the ' company was still carrying on its business in the same manner as other firms. The Armour interests had never found it necessary to disguise their operations, and did not believe in attempting to deceive either themselves or others. If, under more normal condi- | tions, the Government of New Zealand decided agaiiist the company doing business here, then ‘it would not adopt any indirect methods to circumvent the intention, however unfair it. might consider the decision. Under the stress 1 of winning the War public opinion was ‘often taken advantage of by selfish linterests, by middlemen, ‘and by the conlpany’s competitors. It was unfortunate for the company that the middlcmen had been able to play on the patriotism of the New Zealand Government and farmers. He believed that saner counsels would prevail in ':due course. The efiiciency of the Armour organis'aLtion, which eliminated the middlemen as far as possible, was to benefit bot-ll_vtho pr-.0-ducer and consumer. He claimed =that the compa.ny’s competition in the frozen meat business had been, and would continue to be, of benefit to the farmers of the Dominion. It was not a fact that an export license had been refused the company in Australia, but Armour and 00., of Australiasia, Ltd., was «only ‘operating at present in this‘Domin--lon.