THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICAN MEAT TRUST.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1920, Page 8

THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICAN MEAT TRUST.

(ARTICLE 4.) (This is the fourth of a series of four articles, of which Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appeared in our issues of August 16, 17 and 18. Read the earlier j articles.) -J AN UNPRECEDENTED AND UNDEMOCRATIC LAW. But there is an aspect of this whole question of much deeper significance and much wider import than the rights or wrongs of Armour and Company. This law strikes at the very root of democratic government and institutions. \ For the Act amounts to sheer confiscation, and is without parallel in any other country. We ask you for the moment to set aside and forget all about the grievance of Armour & Co. or any other American Company. We ask you to look at the question from the 'broad view of Public Policy. The Act places in the hands of a single individual, the Minister of Agriculture, a power as absolute and unfettered as ever was wielded by an autocrat in the least enlightened Government in the world. The Minister may refuse a license to any firm or company he pleases. He is not bound to give reasons to the Company or to his colleagues in Cabinet, to Parliament, or to a Court of Justice. He is not bound to have any reasons save his own caprice.

The "Kendrick Bill," as proposed in the United States, goes far, we think, dangerously far, in tlie direction of enforcing a control oyer a great industry. It is open to all the objections that apply to State Interference with Industry. But it stops far short of the New Zealand measure. Even Mr. Kendrick, champion of the interests of the "Grocers" and "Department Stores," against the Packers, never dreamed of conferring on the Federal Government of the United States the arbitrary powers "conferred in New Zealand upon a single individual. This is what he said in introducing his Bill in the United States Legislature.

"In the first place, the Bill which I

have introduced establishes a licensing system whereby all the great firms and agencies which are engaged in the preparation of Meat Products in InterState commerce, must obtain a Federal license. The price of this license is HONEST DEALING AND GOOD FAITH, As long as the Packer deals fairly with his competitors and his patrons, as long as he refrains \ from unjust practices, he need fear no interference. But if he should overstep the mark and resort to any of the conspiracies and abuses which were so frequent in the past, he will do so under pain of losing his license. Great care has been taken in drafting the

Bill so see to it that the rights of the

individual or" the corporation which takes out a license shall be protected, so that IF ITHE LICENSEE FEELS HIMSELF AGGRIEVED HE MAY HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT."

This is drastic legislation if you like; it imports a larger measure of Government interference with industry than most folk approve of. But it is aa milk and water to strong poison' compared with the New Zealand Bill.

Here honest dealing and good faith" is not the price of a license. Here the utmost honesty and good faith does not avail the Meat Exporter. Here no grievance can be ventilated in the Courts.

The New Zealand Meat Exporter whose license is refused or revoked may not "have his day in Court." He has absolutely no standing in any Court in the | country. No single Judge—not the whole Bench of Judges—can review the absolute, unfettered, and arbitrary discretion of the Minister of Agriculture. A single Minister in New Zealand is in a position to put • his ABSOLUTE VETO upon any or all of the Meat Export concerns in the country, without giving, or having, or even pretending to have, any other reason than his own opinion. How came such a law to be passed? It was passed in the "short session" of 1918. . Parliament had been called together to pass some urgent- financial measures. The famous "Summary of the Federal Trade Commission" had been printed and circulated in the previous July and was in the hands of Members. Its "facts" about American Meat Trusts had inflamed their i minds. No time was given for argument or discussion. There was not even time to circulate the printed draft of the Bill among the newspapers of the Dominion, as is always done.

iTHE BILL HAD PASSED BOTH HOUSES OP PARLIAMENT, RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, AND PASSED INTO A STATUTE BEFORE A SINGLE EDITOR OR A SINGLE LAWYER IN THE DOMINION, OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, HAD SEEN A DRAFT OP BEEN ABLE TO COMMENT ON OR EXPLAIN ,ITS TERMS! ■Another Bill passed the same session shows, by contrast, the attitude of Members. We refer to the Licensing Bill. That i question had been discussed and considered for years. All Members of both Houses understood every phase of that question. It proposed to permit publicans' licenses to be abolished, not at the whim of a Minister, but on the vote of the people; and it proposed to pay to the Trade, if a majority of the people voted them out, compensation amounting to Four and a-half Million Sterling for loss of their licenses. But no Member of the House ever hinted at compensatioh to a 'Meat Exporter who was refused, or lost, his license. No one suggested even that a licence fee paid in good faith by a Meat Export Company under "The Companies Act," for "carrying on," should be refunded * LEGISLATION BY REGULATION.

_ Under "The Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1918," regulations were duly promulgated and published in January, 1019, By the terms of these the holder pi a meat-export license

(1) Must at all times furnish full anil . true -information as to the business to an officer of the Depart--1 mant; (2) Exhibit his books and correspondence at all times to the inspection of the same officer.

This is certainly carrying State interference with private business concerns to its utmost limits. For their part, Armour & Co. have not the least objection to inspection —Provided—and the proviso. is important—that amended regulations impose some obligations of secrecy on the inspecting officer, and furnish some guarantee, as in the case of Income Tax Returns, that the officer shall not divulge to business competitors the information contained, and that it shall only be available for use in case of prosecutions for breach of the Regulations. But, with such drastic Regulations, what more can the Minister of Agriculture'want? Is it not reasonable that, armed with these inquisitorial powers, lie shall only be allowed to withhold or revoke a license for cause; that he must assign reasons for Withholding or withdrawing, and that .such reasons shall be opej to review by a Tribunal of Justice? «

If any valid reason exists in any particular case for withholding or withdrawing a license, the Minister has ample means for discovering it or proving it, for the books, accounts, and correspondence of each business are open to the most inquisitorial inspection. If the business of buying and selling meat in New Zealand is to be controlled by a system of licensing, let this in fairness be the Law—

That the Minister of Agriculture, in withholding or Withdrawing a license, shall exercise a judicial discretion, shall assign reasons for so doing, shall be satisfied, on reasonable gronnds, either .that the exporter is acting contrary to law, or that he is carrying on his business in a manner contrary to Public Policy, or detrimental to the interests of the community.

AGAINST A JUDICIAL DISCRETION, SUBJECT TO REVIEW, ARMOUR & CO. WILL URGE NO WORD OF OBJECTION. AGAINST AN UNFETTERED DISCRETION, THE ARBITRARY WHIM jOF ANY SINGLE MAN, ARMOUR & CO. UTTERS ITS EM? PHATIC AND VEHEMENT PROTEST, AND WE BELIEVE EVERY JUST-MINDED AND REFLECTING CITIZEN WILL ENDORSE lIHAT PROTEST. LET THE SUPREME COURT DECIDE.

The representatives of Armour and Co.'s interests in New Zealand have been here long enough to know that its judiciary is incorruptible, that the oceupan's of the Supreme Court Bench are men of the highest integrity, of unquestioned impartiality, that their reputation as the administrators of justice stands' as high as that of any other judiciary in the Empire. If the granting of a Meat Export License is made conditional upon honest dealing and good faith, and if the refusal or revocation of it is made conditional upon the licensee acting in breach of law or in contravention of public policy, and the decision of the Minister in any case is made subject to an appeal to a Judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Armour and Company will rest completely satisfied, and will willingly undertake to stand or fall by such a decision.

So much we, in common with every other trading concern and every law-abiding citizen of the Dominion, have a right to demand, and so much we wfll be satisfied with. Nothing less can be consistent with fair dealing and the rudimentary principles of British Justice. CONCLUSION.

We wish, in conclusion, to put to our readers this last question:—Suppo?" the alleged "Meat Trust" did exist in America, and was guilty of all the enormities laid at its door by the Federal Trade Commission, what remedy did that Commission propose? After all its condemnation and vituperation, what the Commission had to recommend in America were these four propositions:—

(i) That the Government acquire all rolliitg-stock used for the transportation of meat animals and that such ownership be declared a Government monopoly.

(2) That the Government acquire the principal and necessary stockyards ■of the country, to be treated as freight depots, so as to ensure competition markets.

(3) IThat the Government acquire all privately-owned Refrigerator cars, and that such ownership be declared a Government monopoly.

(4) That the Government acquire such cold-storage plants and warehouses as are necessary to provide facilities for the competitive marketing and storage of food-products in the principal centres of distribution and consumption.

Now, of these four alleged safeguards, New Zealand already has the first three, while the fourth will be admitted by all concerned to be quite unnecessary at present,

(1) As to the first, the Government already owns and has a monopoly of rolling-stock.

(2) ,As to the second, stockyards in New Zealand are independently owned, usually by small eo-operative companies. If they are in danger of being monopolised, by all means let the Government take them .over. ,

(3) As to the third, there are no pri-vately-owned refrigerator cars in New Zealand. » 1

. (4) As to the fourth, by all means, when necessary. The more cold-storage plants and warehouses the Government chooses to erect, the better. Armour & Co. are certainly not competing! If, then, after all, the only evils against which the Federal Trade Commission recommended protection were those to be cured by the foregoin" means, it is clear that New Zealand is forearmed and that the evils dreaded are already prevented, and none of these evils exist, or are remotely threatened, in New Zealand. \yhy bother? Why cross your bridge till you come to it? "But," say some of our readers, "we must look to the future. This is the thin end of the wedge; once the wedge is driven home, these people will force prices down to the producer and up to the consumer." The suggestion assumes a very low sitimfite of the intelligence i>f the com-

munity, and a very poor opinion of its commercial and industrial enterprise. Government statistics show that in America the small Packers are more than holding their own, in spite of the "Big Five." Let us say at once that American operators could no more establish a monipoly of foqdstuffs in New Zealand than they could a monopoly of brains. We' quote Mr. J. Ogden Armour once more. "If our competition forced all others out of business, and we used the power thus obtained to increase profit-margins 'infairly, there would be amcw crop of competitors to-morrow. I do not expect to see the day when American business men will stand by and keep their hand 3 off any field of enterprise which is paying high profits." Wo apply liis words to the Dominion. If American firms could ever establish a monopoly in New Zealand and obtain a control of prices, other competitors would soon arise to contest their pre-eminence. Armour and Co. have no sort of notion that (he local concerns, to say nothing of large British houses, are going to stand idly by and see Armours purchase cheap meat from the New Zealand farmer and boost prices to tie New Zealand or American consumer. We entertain (it least a higher opinion of our enterprising rivals and competitors than did the framers of "The Slaughtering and Inspection Act." And now that we have had for the first time a heart-to-heart talk to New Zealand farmers, we hope it has done something at least to clear the air of misconceptions and prejudices and to establish us in their confidence. But if there be some of them still that mistrust us and suspect us of the dreadful things Mr. W. B. Colver and his fellow Commissioners suggest, then lire say this to them:—• IF YOU STILL DOUBT US-KEEP AN EYE ON US! THE MOMENT YOU CATCH US "BUILDING REFRIGERATING CARS" OR "MONOPOLISING RAILROADS" OR "CORNERING COLD STORAGE" OR DOING ANY ONE OF THE DIREFUL Things the precious "summary" ENUMERATES OR, IF YOU DETECT US IN ANY ACT INIMICAL TO THE COUNTRY'S WELFARE, OR

YOUR OWN, OR CONTRARY TO GOOD BUSINESS ETHICS—WHY, THEN REFUSE US A LICENSE AND ITURN US OUT! YOU HAVE AMPLE POWER UNDER YOUR LAWS TO DO IT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, AND UNTIL YOU CONVICT US OF THESE THINGS, WELCOME US TO YOUR MARKETS AS CLEAN AND KEEN CUSTOMERS FOR YOUR PRODUCE, OUT TO BUY YOUR MEAT, AND READY AND WILLING AND. ABLE TO PAY A FAIR PRICE FOR IT. (Published by Arrangement.)