PROPOSED FREEZING WORKS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 272, 22 April 1914, Page 6

PROPOSED FREEZING WORKS.

(To the Editor.)

■Sir.- 'i.iving read in your issue of 15:1- 'isi.. the full detailed report of the fa. i i'.' •'nieeling, held in the IJnrougii C'ouiii-il chambers Stratford, on the p,.'-.;i„is day, I skill be glad if yuu ■will, I'm- . lie benefit of the farmers, publish I his i.Uer, which is prompted by my experience of tlie Waiiara Freezing Works when they were controlled by the farmers. 1 was interested in the growth of tlie .Mi.. Egmont freezing Co. from its inception, and, although at the start there was a considerable amount of enthus'.ism. especially mi the part of the. farmers who were anxious N to see the works started, there was a decided falling off in this enthusiasm when the respective farmers were applied to for the backing in capital or guarantee for stock for freezing. The result was that after buying the old works for something about £3,1)00 and spending something like "'fTID.UUU in alterations and improvements, there were not found in Taranaki sullicient farmers to take Hie risks of shipping meat on their own account.to enable the works to successfully carry on. The universal cry was, "We want to sell our meat on the hooks," and to do this a London buyer must lie found. Various London representatives were induced to speculate in Taranaki meat, but owing to the small flocks from which the meat was derived, and the number of rejects from each ■ flock, it was found necessary for the Freezing Co. to assume the position ♦f intermediary between the fanner anil the London buyer, supplying the latter with the first-class meat and otherwise disposing of a lot of stock unsuitable for London. This led to great dissatisfaction amongst the farming community, and the result was the selling of the works to the present holders, who have since kept abreast of the times in the way of enlarging the works, and they still give tlie farmer the option of selling on the hooks or shipping on their own' account. While I do not hold a brief for .Messrs. Bortliwick, I would like to ask the promoters of the proposed new company the ■ question, "Are we farmers likely to be any better olf with the proposed new company than under the old Mt. Egmont Freezing Co.. or will it be. a case of history repeating itself, and the proposed works after a few years falling into the hands of another firm 0 f meat dealers?'' If seems to me that another point to be dotennined upon is, "Are the works to be erected in anticipation of the harbor at New Plymouth being got ready for the big steamers';'' Personally, 1 think caution will suggest waiting for your freezing works until your, harbour is ready for the ships, the works are put up now, and New Plymouth is not able to comply with the shipping companies' requirements as regards accommodation, your works will bo lying idle and deteriorating for an indefinite period between their erection and the tune when the ships can berth at the Breakwater. I have been carefully watching the progress of the Breakwater, and comparing the information given by the .Marine Department vear by year, and I find that during tbe'hist two years the improvements in the shape of deepening the ■berth and the approach thereto have been practically nil. The chart published in the ''Nautical Almanac," 1i) 12, even shows more water than that in the chart of l!)i:i. I bring these points forward, not as an opponent to the suggestion to form a farmers' company, biit as a warning note to farmers who may allow their enthusiasm to ont-weigh their common sense.—l am, etc.,

AN" OLD SHAREHOLDER OF Till MT. EIIMONT FREEZING CO.

[We refer to these misleading statements in our editorial column.—Ed.]