I.—lob.

48

[HON. SIR W. BUCHANAN.

But he is still in business —■ that is the point ? —Yes, up to that time he was still in business, but it would bo, obviously impossible for him to live under that handicap unless lie discovered some either advantage to enable him to overcome it. But that is purely your opinion. As a matter of fact, he- was in business still ? —That woulel necessarily be the opinion, of any business experience and judgment. I have, unavoidably been restricted in giving my evidence. I am not complaining, because I know that the time of the Committee is limited, but the evidence 1 could give if time permitted would be more convincing than in the restricted, form I have quoted. You mentioned the Gear Company ?- -Let me say that I used tho Gear Company only as an illustration. If Armour and Co. is refused a license, would there be anything to prevent freezing companies in New Zealand selling to Armour and Co. c.i.f. ? -No, I think there is nothing to prevent that. A shipper can sell his bill of lading. That would be the position of the Gear Company. Tho (Tear Company woulel be, in a, position which I would not be in as a farmer ? I do not think so. I can. export my own stock, and. have done a great deal in that way. But taking the average farmer, he would not be able to sell to Armour and Co. f.0.b., whereas the Gear Company coulel sell c.i.f. and reap the profits ? —I do not see why las a farmer could not sell my bill, of lading to Armour and Co. just as the Gear Company might do. But the small farmer would not be able tei do that ? —But he has his remedy —he can club together with his neighbours or any other shipper. If it is right to sell to Armour and Co. c.i.f., how can it be: wrong to allow them to operate in New Zealand ? —I do not think any explanation is necessary to supply an answer to that question. What we are up against is the danger of monopoly —of a repetition in this country eif the state of affairs disclosed by the Federal Commission, in South America, unless the Committee believes what was stated by Mr. Carney, manager for Armour- -namely, that the Trade. Commission came to its conclusions upon evidence given by the scum of the population. That is not the point lam getting at. My point is that if it is right for a company to be able to sell to Armour and Co. —whether on the water or in America —how can it be wrong to sell to them, say, at Addington ? —Well, I will tell you : It would be open to Armour and Co., if they could buy on the hoof, to do exactly the same, as they did in South America—--lose a lot of money at first, which would be but a flea-bite to the packer, with a certainty, if no legislation or other competition came in the way, of reaping their harvest afterwards. The packers have been reaping their harvest in South America, Swift admits having made £2,000,000 in one year in South America, But you do not answer my question. If it is right to sell to Armour anel Co. c.i.f., how can it bo wrong to sell to them in the Addington yards ? —I do not understand your question. What lam trying to put to you and to the Committee is this — But I want an answer to my question. I could understand you if you said, "We will never sell New Zealand carcases to Armour and Co." ? —We cannot help it. If it is right to sell to them c.i.f. America, how can it be wrong to sell to them in Addington yards ? —Because it would give them tho, opportunity of crushing existing freezing-works and dictating low prices to the producers, as they did in the Argentine. You mean that it would give them the opportunity of getting control here ?- It would give them an opportunity of which they would be able, to quickly take advantage. If they want to get control, can they not do it by authorizing six agents in New Zealand, to pay l el. per pound higher than anybody else ?—lt is open to them to do that; that is the danger of the position. Although no license were granted, there is that danger of the position. So that, whether a license: is granted or not, if Armour and Co. want control in New Zealand they can got it ? -They can get it, f.o.b. Mr. J. R. Hamilton : That is the whole crux of the question. Armour and Co. may have control of the; markets of the world without having a license to buy in New Zealand. Would not that be more detrimental to us than allowing them to operate, in Now Zealand ? —No, certainly not. In what way ?—Because if you gave: Armour and Co. a license to buy on the hoof here there is nothing to prevent them putting New Zealand through the: same process as the " Big Five " carried out successfully in the Argentine. I will put it in another way. You say that they could lose a lot of money in Ne-w Zealand until they got control of the, market here, until they squeezed everybody else out. Weil, after they finished that squeezing process, would it not be possible for those companies who had suffered by the squeezing process to come into the market again ? What is to hinder them coming back into the trade ? Could they not start and operate again on a free market, and this country would have got the advantage of all the extra money given by the trust to collar the trade ?—The losing-money process was of little consequence to millionaire Armour and Co., but continuance of it meant bankruptcy to tho other side. No; we, would be gaining money ?- But the; freezing companies, what about them ? But they are still getting the freezing to do ?— They we're not getting the freezing in the Argentine : they had to succumb. I know some: of the companies that were operating in tho Argentine strong companies, too but they were quickly brought to book by Armour and Co., and they are now part and parcel of the monopolists, who are giving a very low price to-day to the Argentine producer. Why do not the original South American companies who are now in agreement with the "Big Five" commence to go back to the original position. Because they went through tho bitter process of losing a lot of money before they were; compelled to come to terms with the " Big Five." The same thing would happen here if the squeezing process was gone through. Who is going to start, again ? Supposing the Meat Export Company, or the Gear Company, or any other company, were put through the mill, they would need a lot of ordinary capital to start again. Is it not your experience that when money is to be made out of anything there arc always plenty of people to take it up ?—Yes, if conditions change and after a time they can see reasonable prospects of resuming safe business. Are you aware that some of the freezing companies in New Zealand have, made 100 per cent. profit on their capital ?—No, I am not.