THE WHEAT GAMBLE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3169, 21 April 1909, Page 5

THE WHEAT GAMBLE.

PROPOSED ABOLITION OF DUTY, MR PATTEN'S VIEWS. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph Copyright. Received April 20, 11.31 p.m. NEW YORK, April 20. Several suggestions are being made that the wheat duty in America should be abolished. The Tariff Bill proposes an increase to 30 cents per bushel. Mr Patten replies that such abolition wouldjbe without effect, because the world's markets are now on a parity with America, and will require to import corn and oats for live stock betore long. Mr Wilson's estimates of the wheat from farms was 50 per cent, too high.

A cablegram yesterday morning stated that Mr Wilson, Secretary for Agriculture, had said that there was sufficient wheat ir.JAmerica at normal prices to make bread for all until the new crops are harvested, The present price was fictitious. On March Ist there were 143 million bushels of wheat on farms. Next year's crop, he added was likely to be abnormally large. In reference to the wheat gamble in America, it is interesting to note that the New Zealand consumer is to some extent safeguarded by the Flour and Other Products Monopoly Prevention Act of 1907. This measure was the outcome of the efforts of a fairly strong party in the House of Representatives, of ! which the Hon. A. W. Hogg (the present Minister of Labour) was at the forefront,, for a reduction of the duty on flour. I'he Act provides for the exemption of flour trorn Customs duty by Order-in-Council. The Arbitration Court under thin Act may at the direction of the Governor .enquire as to whether the wholesale market pric£ of flour in New Zealand "is unreasonably high." I Jit is so found, then the court shall recommend the Governor to declare by Order-in-Council that flour shall be admitted free of duty as long as the order remains in force. Flour is deemed "unreasonably high" in price if it is in New Zealand, relatively to the price of wheat in New Zealand, higher than the average, price ot flour in Australia, relatively to the average 'price of wheat in Australia, unless, in the opinion of the court, the additional price in New Zealand is justified by the additional cost of production. It is also deemed "unreasonably high" in price if by combination or complete or partial monopoly of holders the price has been raised above that which would be determined by unrestricted competition. What applies to flour, in L so far as duty is concerned, applies also to wheat and potatoes. It is argued in some quarters, says the Wellington "Post," whether consumers will receive any benefit under ,the Act, as the cause of the high and Jin creasing prices of whaat are beyond the influence of but tne local market responds to those causes just as the American and English markets have responded. It is pointed out that if the duty were removed to-day it would mr.ke no difference, as wheat is as dear, where it is not dearer,' in Australia than it is in this country by from 2d to 3d perb ushel, and flour has advanced in sympathy. It falls out, then, that in consequence of the fancy prices for wheat in Europe, New Zealanders generally—according to the present outlook—will not gain by the magnificent harvests and the sale of from two to three millions of bushels surplus. But.the New Zealand wheat grower, if he realises even at present quotations, will materially benefit, and so, but indirectly, will the whole country.