CORRESPONDENCE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12632, 20 October 1905, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

COMPANY

> * To % Editor^ ■■■•;;;■•• ■ rSir, —While it 'ik quite impossible for us to take notice oi all the attacks that are being made upon us in the I'ress. we crave a little of your space in which to take notice of the letter which the New Zealand papers of September 27th, report has been sent to members of Parliament by ithg Wol'k"--ers' Union. The first ,state!2eiit on which the. writer of this letter basei his claim for consideration is to the effect that the International Harvester Company has- succeeded in completely obliterating all competitors in America and in the Argentine. This is a most sweeping mis-statement, as this company has scores of healthy competitor^ in Amei-ica, some of them employing' from one to two thousand workmen— many of them several hundreds. The statement which we make is one which, ii.' untrue, is easy to refute, but will be found upon impartial investigation to be absolutely correct. Now, so far as the Argentine is concerned, this company and its predecessors have for a; great many years done a large business there. The percentage which we are doing-at the present time is very similar to what was done in the same line, of machines five or ten years iago. There has been no decided change during that period, and to show you how 1 particularly false the statements made by the Workers' Union letter are, we would point out that he goes on fo say in relation to the Argentine—: "This is illustrated by the fact that £140 is charged in the Argentine for the same machine that is sold in Australia for £80." This statement was originally published in the Press of Australia, and obviously refers to stripper harvesters. We believe thai it will be somewhat of a surprise to the Workers' Union to learn that the International Harvester Company had never sold a harvester in the Argentine, and that the ij^ilk of all the liarvesters sold there are supplied by the very Australian manufacturers who are husying "themselves circulating rumours cf this character. We are unable to say whether it is a fact that £140 is charged to a farmer in the Argentine for a harvester. ]f it is so, it not for our machines, and we have no more responsibility for it lhan have the New* Zealand manufacturers themselves, and the fault, if there is any, isi obviously to be laid at the door of the very people who are for their own purposes, hack of this agitation against us in Australia, and may reasonably be taken as a fair sample or what they will do at home if the opportunity is ever afforded to them. These are the only direct statements made in the letter under review, and, being absolutely false, it naturally follows that either oilier grounds of offence must be found against" us, or the letter in itself naturally can carry no weight at all, either with the Parliament or the people of New Zealand. In addition to these statements, however, the letter alludes to the sworn evidence before the Royal Commission. We expect shortly to be accorded an opportunity to rebut this evidence, and in the

meantime it would bo obviously out of place for us to say anything further than that the people of New Zealand should, in common fairness, wait until the case has been heard, and not pass* judgment on tho matter while but 0110 s do 'ci: the evidence has b?en presented. Again, wo dusire to call attention to tho tact that we do not wish in any way to seem to bo mixing in New Zealand politics, and that just so long as those who are working against us confine themselves to facts, no word will be heard from us on any political issue. Wo cannot, however, let go unchallenged such utterly incorrect statements as thosi) that are made in the letter under review.—Yours, etc., - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF AMERICA.