The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1911.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3251, 23 June 1911, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1911.

An interesting controversy is proceeding at the- present junctor** as te the relative merits of the New Zealand and tlie London wool sales. It may be recalled that it was suggested in an article in the “New Zealand Times” that in regard to the matter of competition “there are-more genuine operators bidding in a New - Zealand sale room at aiiy time than there are at the biggest sale in* "London.” Such an assertion was, of course, bound to be the subject of comment on, the .part of tlio Home wool brokers. In a circular letter to hand they warmly declare that the statement is incredible; “Not only are I the European and 'American firms wild

Of Interest to Wool-growers.

have representatives in New Zealand buyers in the London market,” they remark, “but a large number of spinners, manufacturers, and top-makers entirely confine their operations to London. Many small buyers who cannot afford to travel to New Zealand for their purchases ar© also present in Lndon, and their competition is an additional source of strength to the market. The brokers take exception in particular to a remark "that if New Zealand sheepfarmers could only visit one London sale they would never again pass their own local auctions.” What they say is that every New Zealand owner, small as well as big, oould visit the London sale room, they would require no better advertisement for their business; inded many New Zealand sheep-farmers have attended the London sales during recent years, and have expressed their entire satisfaction with the manner an which the auctions are conducted. As regards the question of advancing by Id bids' after Bd, it is ..they continue) purely a matter of opinion, but. there are quite as many people who say the owner gains by this' method of advance as there are who hold the contrary view. False is how the brokers describe a further statement to tlio effect “that the last buyer can take any succeeding i; -’o providing another buyer does not exceed his bid by lid. No such custom, it as averred, has ever been in existence at the London wool sales. This is the brokers’ explanation of the position in this regard: “The ‘last buyer’ privilege does not affect the position of the wool-grow-er in any way. It is not one of the official conditions of sale, but has become ‘unwritten law’ (though a regulation affecting its use among buyers, to which reference is made later, has been passed by the Buyers’ Association) solely to facilitate the progress of the auctions. The number of buyers at the Wool Exchange is so great as to admit of no comparison with the attendance at even the largest auction centre in the Dominion, and the volume of competition at the London selling room cannot be wn. lized by those who are only familiar with auctions in New Zealand. Consequently it may easily be understood how often it occurs that many buyers are shouting one price; and to enable a bidder to be selected quickly by the auctioneer and; thus prevent undue delay, it lias become a custom that a buyer who lias bought, say, lot 50, has the right to> claim Jot 51 at one price only as “last buyer,” but if any other buyer advances, ‘id or Jd per lb, as the ease may be, above this figure, the lot is of course knocked down to the highest bidder. To prevent this privilege being misused, the following rule has been enforced by .the Buyers’ Association (which is regarded as binding by buyers of all nationalities!)—‘A claim for a lot as “last buyer” shall be made immediately and straight out, the price being named, and the decision of the auctioneer on this question shall bo accepted as final.’ ” As regards .the assertions that “the front rank buyers have the sale to

themselves,” and that "a few men run the sale and after it is ovor cut up the wool among the majority of the buyers,” these and similar assertions exp icitly made in. the article the brokers describe as “impudent fictioi «, tlvc* absurdity of which is patent, not only to those wlio know the London sale loom, hut also to all business men who are familiar with open auctions.”. In this connection the brokers also go on to say that although the three front benches in the London sale room are allotted to representatives from the North of England and Scotland, who are large buyers of New Zealand wool, and these benches are always fully occupied, some of the most important individual buyers bid from other parts of the room altogether, and secure a large proportion of the quantity sold, not only for Home centres but also for the Continent and America. The suggestion therefore that collusive action can exist between, this considerable number of independent buyers is absurdly untrue and impossible. It might also be mentioned that the association of brokers consists of Messrs Chas. Balm© and Co., Buxton, Ronald and Co., Du Croz, Doxat and Co., John Hoare and Co., H. P. Hughes and Sons, H. Irwell and Co., Jaeoirr.b, Son and Co., Helmuth Schwartze and Co., Thomas A. Cook, Willans and Overbury, Windeler and Co. All these firms which it is stated are the only sellers of wool 'by public auction on the London market, unanimously concur in the issue of the rejoinder on behalf of the broilers. The London Wool Importers’ Association, it appears, has also taken up the matter. It is their view “that the system of public auction and the conditions under which the London ivool sales are held, ensure reliable and trustworthy competition, affording every protection to wool-growers, and are arranged so as to further the interests of owners to the fullest- possible ertent.” Thus rwc have equally strong denials of what constitutes severe demnation of the methods of selling one of our staple products in the Heme market.