59

I.—lob.

C. J. REAKES.

Dei not those increased prices prove: that the Meat Trust has not the control of the prices in America ?—I do not consider they do prove that. If they we-re a power with the whole meat industry in their hands woulel not they control the prices I Ye-s ; but eve-n then the- price- of meat in any one country- (-specially an importing country as the United States had become before war broke out wemld tend to follow the, price of me-at in other buying countries. If that argument applies in America woulel it apply in New Zealand ? If the law of supply anel demand is operating in America and has lifted the price eif beef from 19s. 6d. to 605., will the: law of supply ami demand operate to our advantage in New Zealand ? That is hardly fair. It may be that under absolutely free-competition cemditions the price in America might have been 655. instead of 60s. Have our prices in New Zealand increased 300 per cent, in the last fifteen years ?—-No ; but they have increased very considerably. So that American competition with the trust has lifted higher proportionately than our system has lifted it ? It was not the internal American trailing alone that lifted it. Take lambs : prime lamb was worth 225. per 1001b. live- weight; to-day it is worth 66s 6d. in America ? Well, the price of lamb in America is hardly a fair thing to make a comparison with, because Amerioans are- not largely a lamb-consuming people, anel lamb there hitherto has been more or less of a luxury. But it is remarkable that the percentage of increase is about the same as in beef ?■ But I do not think that is any more than a coincidence-. Come- down to sheep then : 16s. was the' price in 1903, and to-day it; is 19s. : there is over 200 per cent. That is the' fact that we, as producers have to look- at. Even with all this evidence that there is control in America the producers have: got a, larger increase than we have received ? —But you must remember this: that the- population of America has increased in a much greater ratio then the home-produced meat-supplies. Further, as a matter of fact, when the- war started America had become an importer of meat instead of an exporter, although she- supplied a good deal of meat during the war tei the> British Government. Further than that, her meat-supplies have' not, been controlled in the same way as ours have been. Our meat-prices have been kept at fixed rate's by the sale' of meat tei tlu» Imperial Government. But this has been a, continuous increase-every year there has been an increase- eive-r tin- previous year I —But you are- taking the last year —1918. I am taking from 1903 to 1918 ?—Yes, but the last years are war years. Your argument has been that their whole policy has been to lift prices for themselves anel not lor the producers ( Their policy has been tei influence the- prices to suit their own ends, You saiel they lifted prices and that that was the, policy they would pursue here ?—They might do for a stiirt. The effect in America has not be-e-n se>, according to the facts ? —Weil, of course, you have a great many things to consider in connection with America. You must consider the, extent to which settlement has expanded in America. The: whole country has been developed. In the western part America has developed to a greater relative extent than New Zealand. But that chics not affect the- fact that, they have- not, been able' to control prices ?—Well, they have been more- than once accused of controlling the prices in their own country, and it has been shown officially that they have- done so. Those prices for the Argentine:--the price: for ewe-s was about 335.?- Special Lincoln wethers, 335. to 355. ; special Lincoln ewes, 275. to 28s. lOd. Then you quote the- frozen price for Now Zealand, 40s. : has tho frozen price for New Zealand average wethers ever been.4os,? —The epiote was the, price em the hoof. Wethers have, been sold here on the- hoof for over 40s. What is the price according tei the contract '. -sfd. for first-quality wethers under 721b. weight. A. 561b. wether em that basis would give you —free of freezing-charges—23s 4d., and then there is the skin. Taking the average prie-e-, that indicates that the Argentine- anil New Zealand are about on a par, and you cannot take 10s. as the average price' in Now Zealand ?—A great many good sheep have been sole! for 40s. or eive'r. But on those figures the Argentine price and ours are about the' same to-day ? —I do not think so. I have' seen the Argentine meat in the, Smithfield Market and the best of it was good mutton. 1 am taking it as being as good as ours : em tho, facts you gave us they would indicate: that the prices are' about the' same as ours ? —But it costs less to get it Homo from tho Argentine. Supposing that Armour and Co, wanted to ge;t control of the New Zealand business, you say there is no objection tei selling c.i.f. to them. Supposing they gave a c.i.f. price of |d. per pound above anybody else, could not they get control in that way without adopting the course, they are following ? They might get a considerable amount of the- meat, but at the same time we could sell our me-at te> whom we wished. Who would get the meat it Armour gave },(]. per pound more' than any other buyer !- They woulel be likely to get it. Supposing a license- is refused to them, could they still continue to buy in New Zealand anil act just as any other firm ? No, they cetulei not, without laying themselves open to a. heavy penalty, But if they did not export, e:oulel not they go into the; markets and buy ?-- But it is not of much use their buying unless they can export. But they could sell from the: fre-e-zing-works to anybody ?—Yes. As a, matter of fact, we: have no control over them if they want to continue business ? Yes, we' have-. Except that they woulel have to have an agent ? —Yes; but that agemt requires to have a license to export the, meat. The Gear Company could seil c.i.f. to Armour and Co. ? ■--You mean that Armour and Co. (Australasia) would put their meat in the; hands of the Gear Company, and the Ge:ar Company would seil it to Armemr and Co. of Chicagei. Then tho Gear Company would risk losing their own license. But your contention is that there is no wrong in selling c.i.f. to America ?—lf it suits us. But that is a difre-rent thing from the Gear Company acting in collusion with Armour and Co. of Australasia.