WOOL COMMANDEER.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 March 1920, Page 9

WOOL COMMANDEER.

" MR. LYSNAR'S STAND. AGITATION FOR REVISION OF- . CONDITIONS. Mr. W. D. Lysnar, M.P-, of Gisborne, who has taken an active part in attacking the continued control of wool as a serious financial loss to pastoralists of the Dominion, has advanced the. agitation for revision, of conditions in a letter to tho Prime Minister. The Government circularised growers last month to the effect that the requisiion of wool will not be lifted on June 30 next, and that "its sale otherwise than to the Government will be an offence." Mr. Lysnar, in a letter dated February 10, has intimated that he is withholding his wool, and will continue to do so unless, as demanded by him earlier, that in default of agreement as to the price payable, the price shall be determined by the arbitration of a Judge of the Supreme Court, in accordance with the provision of section 5 of the War Regulation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1915. This the Government has declined, and the writer now invites a prosecution. According to his figures, the woolgrowers of this Dominion, in consequence of this breach of the wool contract, were making concessions and losses to the benefit of the profiteers to the extent of approximately £7.050,050 per annum. These figures have never been officially questioned. Mr. Lysnar asserts that instead of the surplus wool being placed upon the open market as the contract provided, a bogus sale or mock auction was being made of the wool not required for Imperial purposes at fixed issue, prices mi,ch below its true value. The. Im-prr'-1 authorities .confirmed the original arrangement with the woolgrowers to allow them half profits in the sale of surplus wool, but in a letter Mr. H. T. T- West, of the War Office Raw Materials Department, acknowledged in effect that what the Gisborne committee alleged was correct, but said they (the Imperial authorities) were selling the surplus wool at "prices which merely covered costs and expenses." "This direct breach and violation of our original contract.'' says the writer, "is in no way assisting the Imperial authorities, but, on the other hand, helping the profiteers at Home. This is now being confirmed by the sbandalous disclosures that are coming to light through 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 3200 per cent, profit." Finally, Mr. Lysnar challenges the Government to take legal action against him. THE PREMIER'S REPLY. I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th inst., which appears to have been written under some misapprehension. I would point out that the circular in question does not suggest, as your letter indicates, that you are committing an offence at present by withholding your wool, but merely advises that it will be an offence to attempt to export it or to sell it to any purchaser except the Government.— I am, etc., W. F. MASSEY, Prime MinisterWellington, February 19, 1920. MR. LYSNAR'S REPLY. To this Mr. Lysnar replied:— Dear Sir,—Your favor of the lflth instant was received at Gisborne today, and I note with satisfaction that you acknowledge I am not committing an offence by withholding my wool, and you further state that it would be an offence to export or sell this wool to any purchaser except the Government. I may say that while the commandeer actually exists I do not question the position as stated in your reply, and if your circular letter had been as clear I should not have taken exception to it, but it contained a clear threat that after the commandeer expires on June 30, 1920, the restrictions will still continue, and it was solely to this phase I objected. While the commandeer is in existence I fully recognise your Government has a legal right to take my wool if it take 9 certain steps as provided by Statute. My'complaint is thai now the war is over you should take those proper steps, but instead you are adopting a course which was not provided for by the law, and which in effect strips me of my right to get a fair market value for the wool, while it enables -profiteers to obtain my wool below its true value, and these profiteers are then allowed to make exorbitant and unreasonable profits out of the transaction. Consequently I contend that if you do not take, my wool during the period of the commandeer in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law, then when the commandeer ceases you have no further right over my wool and cannot impose restrictions upon me as to what I shall or shall not, then do with it. You admit the w?iole position when you say I am now committing no offence by withholding my wool. Therefore if I am not breaking the law by withholding it you have no legal or equitable right to threaten me as you did in your circular with pains and' penalties after the termination of the commandeer.—l am, etc.. W- DOUGLAS LYSNAR.