HON. SIR W. BUCHANAN.]

45

I.—lob.

Commission. There were three men in the employment of Armour and Swift who wore stated to be: in enjoyment of £2,000 a year each from the packers, and who were: also getting 1 dollar a year from the, Feioel Controller, Mr. Hoover. The reason given for the payment of the dollar a, year was that these three men we're; also in the: employment of Mr. Hoeiver in connection with the control of food bought from the packers and its shipment for the purpose of feeding the Army. These three: men were to a largo extent instrumental in fixing the prices at which the supplies were furnished —canned geieids and meat of all sorts supplied by the packers tei the; Ge>vernment of tho United States. Mr. Carney CArmour and Co., Limited, Australasia) : I woulel like to ask whether that was not so in all the other industries during the war —that for all classes of work during the war men in America, instead of taking huge salaries, accepted a dollar a year for the work they diel for Army and Navy ?—I am not in a position to argue: that point. I merely give as my authority these volumes of evidence, and they are absolutely indisputable: Mr. Carney : It is very misleading. Mr. Lysnar : Was it sot the apparent intention of these; three men to represent to Mr. Hoover that they were prepared te> give; their services practically for nothing for national purposes during the war ? That is not in the: evidence. I do not say it is in the evidence;. They pretended they were: serving the Uniteel. States for a nominal figure ?—As far as I have read, I have not e'ome across that view as applied to this extreme position. It may have been so —I cannot tell. Is there anything in the evidence to show that Mr. Hoover knew that they were: getting £2,000 from the meat-packers ? Oh, yes, the statements are: there-, But when they were engaged by Mr. Hoover ? Was it only discovered after Mr. Hoover hail engaged them that they were receiving £2,000 a year from the packers ? —I have not e:ome; across that. The statement is simply made by a witness who had access to all the papers, that they were getting this £2,000 a, year from the packers and a dollar a year from the State. What wore the names of the two packers whose servants they were ? —Armour anel Swift. Now I. wish to make a general statement as to the large sums received by tho " Big Five," in amounts proportionate, to the size of their business and so forth, from Chambers of Commerce throughout the United States. In the case: of Chicago, for example, the packers exacted large sums of money from the municipality to induce them to continue their stockyards at Chicago. The record shows that in the case of Armour he was paid £600,000 on condition that his stockyards remained in Chicago for fifteen years. In various parts of the United States this sort of thing was epiite current: e:ertain packers, according tei the circumstances of the; case, exacted so-much money for the trade: they brought into the: different localities. In Mr. Armour's case the amount was £600,000. So also to conceal the large profits made by the packers out of these stockyards, tho capital was watered by adding these bemuses, and the percentages of profit made to appear much less than they really were. A great deal of this sort of thing was done in the United States, and the largo sums in bonuses thus demanded and obtained were made use of to inflate the capital and so apparently lessen the percentage of profit. I think, Mr. Chairman, in deference to the desire of the Committee: to shorten the: proceedings of the: Committee: as much as possible, I will conclude; by again pointing out, as I did before, that the' granting of the; license to Mr. Armour, or to any member of the " Big Five," would be: enormously to the detriment of New Zealand, assuming that their policies after obtaining licenses woulel be: of the; same character as that which has obviously been pursued by the " Big Five; " for the last fifty years in the: United States. Not content with the complete monopeily of the moat trade, they reached out into the control of numerous articles, numbering something like eight hundred of tho necessities of life ; anel if a similar condition obtained in New Zealand it is unnecessary for me to point out the- enormous injury it would bo to our best interests. The: production of live-stock in N;w Zealand is of peculiar importance to this country. The industry is the basis of all our prosperity. Indeed it is obvious that we should be, seriously crippled to meet our obligations were we dominated with monopolies such as we are eibviously threatened with. Mr. Jennings: How would it be to the detriment of stock-raising in New Zealand if Armour and Co., or any of the "Big Five," dei not ask to be; allowed to establish, freezing-works here--if the packers were simply to purchase the meat here and they were to give a higher price to the: producer than he receives now, how would it bo to the detriment of the, stock-raiser ? -if the:y gave a higher price, for the stock it wemld clearly be to the advantage of the stock-raiser, always provided that that higher price was not to be: of a temporary character, as was undoubtedly the case in the; Argentine. The " Big Five' " commenced operations in the Argentine by giving big prices, which their huge capital enabled them to pay, for a time. But the original companies in the Argentine, although well established, were not able to continue to give- the big prices, and speedily had tei make: terms with the " Big Five-." Then down went the prices of stock in the Argentine. I have the figures here to show that although tho price of beef in the Smithficld Market in London dembled and more-, the price of beef in the Argemtinc remained iiractically the same from 1914 to 1918. Would not that be to the benefit of the consumer if the prices remained low ? —Not at all, be'eause the consumer was in London and had to pay the increased London price. I am speaking locally—in the Argentine: ? lam he-re in the interests of the; producer, and the producer was not given the advantage of the great rise in prices. As a matter of fact, cattle: were selling here at £5 a head more than they were bringing in the Arge-ntine at the same time, although they are within twenty days of the London market as against our sixty days, with the handicap of frozen beef as against chilled. Mention was also made last Friday before this Committee that the Argentine meat was much inferior to the New Zealand meat. I have never been in the Argentine, but I know that for years past tho Argentine stockowners have: been taking the cream of British stud stock, and with such good effect that instances have been placed on record of twenty-months-old steers being killed close up te> 7001b. dressed weight withemt any artificial feed at all. New Zealand is well known to be one- eif the finest stock countries in tho world—admittedly so—but it woulel give even New Zealand something to do to equal —much more to surpass —that. Again and again I have seen the Argentine meat in the Smithfieid Market, and 1 know the wonelerful improvement they have made.