I.—lob.

50

[HON. SIR W. BU CHANAN

You recognize, do you not, that if they control the retail butchers in the shops they practically dominate the whole position? —Yes. I can give an instance of what happened in that regard : I once visited the City of Boston, which holds a, population of over a million, and I was invited to go out to the stockyards through which the live-stock supply of the city was handled. I found the, grass growing in the yards. I had a talk with some of the butchers, and asked how this came about. They told me that they had been asked by the packers to take their meat from Chicago, and when they refused they soon found that a butcher's shop was started alongside of them and the prices brought down to an extent which soon put them out of business. Consequently the butchers had to succumb and take their meat from Chicago. You recognize that there is a danger of the trust controlling the retail side of the question ?—Yes. And if they controlled a sufficient amount of that they would really dominate the position ? —Yes, dominate the position both to the producer and to the consumer. And therefore would that be a strong reason why no facilities should be given to those people to buy our meat c.i.f. or f.0.b., or in any way that is possible ? —My view is this : that it would be a good thing if we could take advantage of the American market without regard to the packers. Our effort should be to get entrance into tho American market without getting under the control of the packers. If the Government refused Armour and Co. a license do you think it is right for Armour and Co. to circumvent that refusal by buying c.i.f. ? Should not legislation be provided to stop that, so as to make the refusal complete ?—I do not know how you could prevent that. Do you not think it should be stopped if it is possible to do so ? —Well, if the worst comes to tho worst, we want to stop the monopoly and the restriction of competition. And you agree that if legislation would help in that direction it should be provided ? —Yes. Will you say that if Armour and Co. is refused this license there should be legislation provided so as to stop them from buying on the hoof ? —Most decidedly. Mr. Hamilton put to you some questions about the " squeezing-out " process : may I put it to you that you do not approve of any squeezing-out process being permitted in New Zealand ?—Most decidedly not. You think that would be ultimately detrimental to the Dominion ?—Yes. It does not matter if a few greedy farmers want to get a few extra shillings foi their stock, you would say that that advantage would be outweighed by the disadvantage of the. danger of tho monopoly coming ? —Most certainly. As a farmer, would you prefer not to get a little extra price temporarily for your stock in view of the great danger ? —Most certainly. You say you do not think the farmer really understands the danger of these trusts ?—How can he ? As was the case of the two first witnesses that were examined by this Committee last Friday, they did not know the history of the meat trade outside New Zealand—they said so. Now, Mr. Jones questioned you on a statement made by Mr. Donaldson, whether you are aware that Mr. Donaldson said he is representing a largo company that owns several stations upon which, 1,250,000 sheep are shorn yearly. Might not Armour and Co. be behind that company ?—Very easily. And, naturally, you would reserve your judgment until you knew who this company was ? —Most certainly, because the packers may, for all we know, be the owners, or may have advanced the money on the security of that stock under engagement. And they might also be the owners of these ranches ? —Certainly. Mr. Carney has made a statement to the effect that there are few companies in New Zealand which use the by-products to any extent: do you know if that statement is true ?—I know of no companies who are in that position. On my first visit to America it was quite clear to me that the American packers were ahead of us in their utilization of by-products, but that is many years ago. We were simply in our infancy in the business, whereas America had been at it for a long time. There may be some advantage in the practices of tho Americans to-day, but I think the extent of it is very "small. The benefit, if any, that the American packers could give to our growers would be very small. Mr. Carney says they throw the by-products away in New Zealand ?—That was the case in the very infancy of the business, but it is not so now. I know of nothing being thrown away which would pay to ship or to utilize. You were questioned on the subject of collusion between the buyers in New Zealand : do you not think that if there is collusion between the New Zealand buyers to-day that should be met by legislation if the present legislation is not sufficient ?—lf necessary, yes. Then, further legislation should be provided, if necessary ?—Most certainly, to prevent an iriury to the producer on the one hand and to the consumer on the other. Do you not think if that were done it would largely eliminate the desire for Armour's license to be granted because of that combination among Now Zealand buyers ? It would be a wiser step to legislate against collusion by New Zealand buyers than to let Armour and Co. come in ?—After a careful inquiry into the facts, yes. Who was really to benefit by that propaganda work to which you referred ?—The packers. It was really to put their side of the case forward ? —Really to do what the Germans did in America at the beginning of the war —by camouflage to carry public opinion with them. In my travels across America I have had opinions expressed to me as statements of fact that were all originated by this system of camouflage and propaganda, because the people who expressed these opinions had no other source of information. You say that this propaganda was simply to benefit the trust and not to increase production ? — Yes, that was clear, because the packers were so pushed to provide the supplies required by the American Army that there was no occasion for ordinary trade advertising.