LOSING £5000 DAILY.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 October 1917, Page 6

LOSING £SOOO DAILY.

To the Editor. Sir—This looks like a big order, but the enclosed cutting from a leading contemporary proves its correctness, and this appalling loss comes through the fool way we have sold our meat, not to the British Government as is popularly supposed, but to the power behind the throne. It is too late to squeak now. Massey and Ward were well enough warned, as everyone in freezing circles know that the Meat Trust was getting the profits, and the men who are afraid to lock up sedition spreaders are not the men to stand up to a four hundred million pounds sterling combination. I recently perused a letter from a meat salesman who is in the firing line of the meat battle, and he says the stranglehold of the Meat Trust is complete; it dictates how many carcases are to be released, and who is to get them. It cost the Trust millions of money to work the thing hefore they got a cent of profit, but now it is getting it back in tens of milllions. Aext to the Mesopotamian scandal, this is the greatest, as it shows that the Dominion Government, in spite of all these warnings, could not get us an agreement like the Australian or Argentine one, which allows them to dispose of their surplus meat instead of being tied to the Trust. Mr. Massey's last letter to the Shipping Boss shows that the Trust has got "both bowers and the ace," and apparently we can do nothing. The reiflection is a melancholy one.—l am, etc., W. R. WRIGHT.

Extract from the Auckland Star and New Zealand Farmer: Tn some recent notes I referred to the extraordinary position which exists in regard to the sale of New Zealand produce in England. The matter had not at that time attracted public attention. But it has now. Almost every day one finds big headlines and vigorously-word-ed articles in the London dailies, demanding a solution of the problem. The Imperial Government takes the whole of the .Dominion's meat output at an average price of about 5%d per lb. Tht Englishman, having suddenly realised this, wants to know why he in turn has to pay anything between Is 3d and 2s per lb for his meat. But the New Zealand producer's concern will go further. He knows that freightage to England costs less than Id. Where goes the profit on his produce! Not into Imperial coffers, for figures recently published indicate that the Board of Trade sells New Zealand .meat to Imperial and Colonial troops for TJd and 8d per lb. And the Board of Trade sells to the wholesalers of Smithfield for lOd. The consumer buys at/ on the average, probably not less than Is 6d per lb. The price to him varies from Is Sd to 2s, according to supplies and qualities. Where then does the profit go? Whose pockets are bulging? A little while ago the daily newspaper? were crusading amongst the funkholes, digging out the eligibles in Whitehall, and other seemingly secure places. Now they are on the hunt for the pr*. fiteer. And the problem regarding New Zealand meat is arousing no end of interest.

In the House of Commons the question .has been freely raised. A few days ago a' member asked was it true that Government inspectors had discovered that abnormal quantities of meat had been condemned at Smithfield, because the wholesalers had allowed it to go bad rather than leduce prices. The minister of the Department concerned would not deny the allegation. In the House of Lords, after a lengthy discussion, Lord Ehondda, the new Food Controller, promised that a fixed scale of prices for meat both for the Army and the civilian population, would come into operation | en September 1. A letter in the Times from Lord Inchcape, is worth quoting from. Dealing with the matter more particularly as it refers to Australian meat, he says: "I am a director of an Australian meat company, and I have interests in certain steamers which bring the meat to England. The meat is sold in Australia to the British Government at the following prices, free on board:Beef, 4y s d per lb; mutton sy s d per lb. If freight, two months' interest, and cost of marine and war risk insurance is added, the meat is landed in London at the following prices: Beef, 6%d per lb; mutton, 6%d per lb. Certainly neither the farmer, the proprietors of the meat works, nor the shipowners can be said to be the profiteers." Two points are perhaps at the present moment particularly worth noting. Meat prices are to be fixed very shortly; New Zealand is in a. different position to Australia in that the Australian Government has an agreement whereby it sells all its own surplus produce. What the Imperial Government does not require for military purposes, the Commonwealth authorities are themselves allowed to dispose of. New Zealand has no such saving clause. It is probably not too late to gain at least this concession. The position is exactly the same in regard to our clieese exports. The Imperial authorities take the whole New Zealand output at 94d. Less than Id per lb brings it Home. It is sold to the wholesalers at Is 2d, and retailed at Is M. Into whose pockets do the profits go? But it is in regard to the price of meat that there is most concern, and the difference between 5%d for meat, which the producer gets, and 2d per mouthful, which the consumer pays, is unexplained. That latter computation is not merely fired at random, by the way. I had a grill at the NorthWestern Hotel, in Liverpool, the other night. It would have fitted quite easily into my cigarette case, and it cost me h 6d; with it I had,green peas Is, potatoes 'Gd, roll of war bread 2d, and a pint of beer .Is. This is iside-tracking, of course, but it gives an incidental notion of what food costs in England these days, Naturallly the matter has been engaging the serious attention of our High Commissioner. Sir Thos. .Mackenzie, bin his public utterances have been mainly directed towards emphasising the fact that the profits do not go to line the pockets of the New Zealand producers. He points out that when the farmer receives 4 7 / s d for his mutton and CJd for his lamb, there is no ground on which to rest a charge of profiteering so far as the colonial producer is concerned. In endeavoring to trace what happens at this end, the High Commissioner points out that surplus New Zealand stocks amount to not more tlian SU,i: ! .IU carcases per week. These are disposed of to the wholesalers uy specially appointed Government agents, who receive 2 per cent, commission. Cold storage charges at the port of origin, freightage, insurance and demurrage must be added. The wholesaler sells to the retailer at the rate I of :id for nu.tter. and UM/.d for lamb. The wholesaler, adds Sir Thomas, is not I allowed to charge Ihg retailer a profit i of more than Ad per lb. (jnee the meatpasses into the retailer's hands it is bo., yond Government control, and here, apuarentiv. the problem nears solution.

Op to this stage the High Commissioner claims there is no chance of profiteering. Sixty per cent, of the meat consumed here is Home grown. As the retailer's profits on Home-grown meat are cut to a very narrow margin at prevailing stock prices, the retailer, instead of selling New Zealand meat at a small advance, asks for, and readily obtains, the price prevailing for British meat. Which means that the retailer buys our meat at not more than IOJd, and sells at whatever happens to be the prevailing price for the Home-grown article. •Sir Thomas has shown very clearly that the New Zealand farmer is / making no unfair profit. But the point'is this: The British farmer is getting the full price for his stock. He is not compelled to sell at a stipulated price. The New Zealand fanner is. And the difference between an average price of about 9;Jd, at which the retailer buys New Zealand meat and the actual price at which the same retailer buys Home-grown meat, goes into the pocket of the retailer. Why should it? Threepence per pound would be a modest enough average to strike when computing the excess profit. Workthat out on 50,000 carcases per week, and it will be seen that at least £30,000 per week is going into the pockets of the middleman, when it should be going back to New Zealand. And boiled down to a finer point still, it is obvious that this would not happen if New Zealand had a similar agreement with the Imperial Government to that which Australia and the Argentine possess, namely, that the Dominion Government should have the right to dispose of any surplus over and above the amount required for the Army.