THE WOOL COMMANDEER.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3422, 28 February 1920, Page 5

THE WOOL COMMANDEER.

IS IT EQUITABLE 3 ‘ MR. LYSNAR DEFIES IT. The {following letter was -addressed to the Prim,‘Minister by Mr. W. D. Lysnar, to %v.._‘,ch he has received no reply, nor has he bfin prosecuted as threatened:—— . Gisborne, Feb. 10th, 1920. Hon. W". F. Massey, Minister in Charge Department of Imperial Government Supplies,‘ Wellington. ‘ V Dear Sir,I duly received your circular letter of the 23rd ultimo, in which you state you learn that “certain Woolgrowers are holding back their Wool under the impression that it will be free from the Government requisition after the 30th June, 1920.” You say this will not be -the case, and that the wool! cannot be exported from New Zealand, and that “fits cseule otherwise than to the Government will be an offence.”

As a wool-grower who is advisedly wi-tholding his wool, I take strong exception to your circular letter, and‘ particularly resent your statement that , one is committing an offence, for so‘ far as my legal advisers and I myself; read the law, I am committing no of-l fence, and am_ acting entirely in ac-‘ cordance with the spirit and letter of the law. i On the 23rd December, 1918, I ofii-' cially notified your Government and the Imperial ‘Supplies Department that‘ I objected to deliver any more wool to the Government unless they decide! that in default of agreement as to the 1 price payable, the price shall be deter-; mined by the arb-itration of a Judge? of the Supreme Court in accordance‘ with the provision of section 5 of the War Regulation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1915. I then intimated that if the Government did not agree to act in accordance with section 5 of their own legislation, that they were -to take my refusal to deliver any further Wool as final, and I asked that a warrant should be issued to seize the wool as provided by law. I further intimated that if you did issue such warrant in acordance with the Act (which I quite recognise you have power to do) I should not resist the execution of it,

but if it were issued I purposed invoking the rigfit to claim full compensation conferred by sections 31, 32, and 33 of “The Regulations of Trade and Commerce Act, 1914.” To this notifi-ca-tion an official reply was received sta.ti_ng..tha,t the Government could not accept my ofier fo deliver my woo-1 on the.ter.nlsi that the. price be fixed by arbitration, and, fuflthC'.l', they (tl-3ie=Gover,nment) had no present intention of seizing it under the regula-

tions of the Trade and Commerce Act] as suggested by me. * I would here point out that correspondence shows that I am taking this course advisedly and deliberately, as a mark of protest in consequence of the war now being over and your GO- - and the Imp‘erial. authorities allowing‘ the original contract to be broken and the law as it stands disregarded, and the patriofisnl of the New Zealand producer used to enable manufacturers to make unreasonable profits. As far back as August, 1918, I wrote to Sir James Allen, ActingPrirne Minister, forwarding a statement whieh showed~tllat the woolgrowers of -this Dominion in consequence of this breach of the wool contarct were making concessions‘ and

losses to the benefit of the profiteersl to the exten t of approximately £7,-1 650,050 per annum. These figures, I! may point uot, have never been oflicially questioned by your Governm-enti or Department, although I invitedl them to do so. I would further point out to you? that in October and November, 1918, correspondence passed lbétween th;e~ Gisborne Woolgriowers’ Committee: and yourself in which you were informed, that Clause 6 of the original contract for the sale of N.Z. wool to the Impe.rial authorities Was being broken and disregarded, and that instead of the surplus wool being placed upon the open market as the covenant provided, a. bogus sale or mock auction was being made of the wool not required for Imperial purposes at fixed issue prices much below its true value. You were then good enough to communicate with the High Commissioner, and he stated that the Imperial authorities ' confirmed the original arrangement with the wool-growers to allow them half profits in the sale of surpuls wool, but in 9. letter Wli‘lCll you received from Mr. H. L. T. West, of the War Office, Raw Material Department, Lon, don, he acknowledged in effect that what the Grisborne Committee alleged was correct, but he said they (the Im. perial authorities) were selling the gut. plus wool at-“prices which merely covered cost and expenses.” This is an oflicial acknowledgment of the di. reét breach. and violation of our ori. ginal contract, and it was in no way assisting the Imperial authorities, but on the other hand helping‘ the pro. fiteers at Home This is now mg » confirmed -by the scandalous 4- _ 3gates that are coming? to light throughi

the_ ‘Committee appointed under the Profiteering Act in England, and issued by the Board of Trade there, who are investigating matters at Home. These disclosures show that in consequence of these sales at such low prices, the manufacturers at Home have been able to make from 400 to 3,200 per cent. profit, and I desire to again point out to you and your Government, as I have endeavoured to do before, that my refusal to delivef any more wool was because I was fully aware that this profiteering was going on, and I strongly object to facilitate its continuance.

I However, under all the circumstances I [as you officially say I am committing ran offence, I invite you and your GO- - to take immediate action against me, as I have no desire to in- } tentionally disregard or break the law in connection with this commandeer, and at present, as far as I can learn, ‘and I am -legally advised I am not! breaking any law, but on the contrary. 5 lyour Government and the, Imperial liauthorities have been -breaking both -the terms of the original contract and ldisregarding the law which your GO- - has placed on the Statute Book, and I ask you immediately to put ‘ me right by taking action against me” : As considerable publicity has been‘ ‘given to your circular let.ter in this I matter, I propose, unless you cause imlmediate preceedings to be taken ‘against me (which I invite you to do) to have this letter published, but lshould you desire to reply’ to same without taking action, it will afford -me pleasure to hand your reply to thepress at the same time as this letter. I I feel the producers as a Whole do not . understand their real position, and in ‘many respects they are being -bluffed ‘and misled as to their true rights. I ‘ask what right‘ has any Government to Idisregard its own contracts and laws, and endeavour to coerce any producer from’ protecting his legal rights, and I say distinctly that if you do not take i action against me to show I am breakling some law you have no legal right or equitable right to tlireaten me with pains and penalties after‘ the*com-men- ' deer is over. In other words, if I have l a legal right to withhofd my wool from lgoing to profitcers or others unless a fair value is paid for it, you in turn have no right to threaten me‘ be/causel

choose to act on my legal rights which you apparently desire to ignore. [beg to remain. . Yours respectfully, [ (T\Ti;§llod) ‘V.’ DOUGLAS LYSNAR.