I.—lob.

60

|C. J. REAKES.

Supposing Armour and Co. of Australasia buy 50,000 carcases of lamb in New Zealand and freeze it in the Gear Company's works, and the Gear Company as their agents sell it c.i.f. to Armour and Co. of Chicago, is that any offence against the law ?—lt would be quite within the Minister's power to inform the Gear Company that if they did not stop that practice he would cancel their license. Well, the best legal authorities are, against you ? With all due- respect to the best legal authorities I think they are under a misapprehension. But still there- is the- fact that if they want control they can get it by buying c.i.f. ? —No, 1 disagree. It is your personal belief that the American trust is operating here to-day? Well, they are: liable to have it proved that they are Armour and Co. even if the»,ir trade, name is. say, Smith, Jones, and Co., or whatevi'r is the name of the firm acting for them. Mr. Hawken: I want you to make erne point clear about the' Argentine control of meat. 1 understand that the Meat Trust is so strong there that they dictate, to the other companies what price they shall get. They get, a certain proportion of the- me-at, but the prie:e- is the same ?- I dei not know that they actually dictate the: buying-price, but they arc able- to ve-ry largely influence the' buying-market. It was Mr. Hoeiver who indicated that they could do that. Apparently they have now come to an agreement as to what proportion of the trade they shall have ? -Naturally they can give what price: they think will suit them. Discredit has been thrown upon that Commission that inquired into the: affairs of the trust in America: have you any evidence to prove that that Commission was not a, properly qualified and influential Commission ?—No, no e-.vidence of the kinel. I have no evidence that it was not a properly constituted Commission. There is everything to show that it was, because the Commission was set up by the Uniteel States Government, and as a result of its investigations and findings the, Uniteel States Government took this ve;ry drastic action which is embodied in that decree, which 1 have submitted to members of the' Committee. Mr. Forbes: Do you think that the power which the Minister has under the present Act would, be sufficient to control Armour and Co. starting business here'—that is, refusing the license if the:y did anything detrimental to the interests of the producer ?—Well, the point, is that the Act undoubtedly confers vevry drastic powers upon the- Minister, but it Armour and Co. were given a license the Minister could not logically refuse licenses tei the either packing companies, anel they could come lie-re- and, without actually committing a sufficiently serious act to warrant the Minister in refusing a license, they could gradually get a dangerous measure eif control ove j ,r our selling-market in this country, and might even gain a control ove:r the interest in the ownership of freezing-works. But if you dei not think yem have sufficient power under your present legislation extra, power could be: given. If it is decided to give a license to Armour and Co., dei you think more legislation is necessary than you have at; present, in the direction suggested in this petition— that the different meat-buying firms should be compelled to send to the Department eif Agriculture, a monthly report as to the stock bought, and such othe:r information as is advisable ? Have you the power to call for that information now ? Yes, 1 be:lie;ve we have under the regulations made under the 1918 Ae;t, but hitherto when the Department has wanted information of that kind it has 1 n furnished voluntarily. You have not, up to the present time, expe-rieni'ed any difficulty in getting the fullest information about operations in the market ?—No. And you do not think there need be any further legislation on that subject ? Ido not think so. At any rate we coulel elo it by regulations. You say that if we grant this license we- may have to grant others : you have no objection to the: granting of licenses to British firms ? -So long as the British firm is all right and there is nothing to show that the granting of a license to them would be detrimental to the interests of New If things are wrong it doe's not matter what is the nationality of the: firm. Are you. satisfied as to the bona fides of all the companies already deiing business in New Zealand— that; they have got the interests of the producer at heart, as you think they ought to have ? Weil, no doubt the desire to run business profitably exists among the freezing companies as well as among other people, but the freezing companies, generally speaking, act reasonably. I understand that there is some doubt cast upon Vestey Bros. : elo you think yourself that there: is no connection between the companies■ operating here anel the trust companies? Well, we' have made a groat many careful inquiries about Vestey Bros., and there is no doubt that the:y arc a tremendously wealthy organization, anel my opinion is that they want very careful watching ; but at the present time the information at our disposal and it is pretty extensive does not warrant the extreme step of refusing them a license. You think that in dealing with Vestey Bros, you should wait until they do something wrong, when you will take the; license from them ?■■ -The Minister has ve-ry drastic powers, and naturally he wants very good evidence before he exercises those powers. Coulel not he do the same thing if you gave' a, license tei Armour and Co. ? But the Minister has his evidence already in regard to Armour anil Co.. evidence obtained against them by their own people; in their own country. But the feeling in America is not hostile: towards Armour anel Co. by the .American Government ? —I should take it that the feeling of the American Government in connection with Armour and Co. and the other companies is that they have to be kept under very thorough control. In other words, the American Government is in the position of having to endeavour to repress them, and it has been in that position for the last twenty-five years. But do you not think that here in Now Zealand a, very small country with a Government which is in constant touch with the producer, there wemld be less danger of a trust getting established than in a big country like America ?—No ; I think- tin- danger wouhl be- rather the other way, especially in view of the great financial resources eif these- five companies. Mr. Masters : It has been suggested that the farmers are not getting full value lor their products, and that if Armour and Co. were allowed to come in here it woulel brighten things up a bit—to use a term ?—I think it is quite possible that for a time Armour anel Co. would lift prices up. Are not some of the freezing-works in Now Zealand held entirely by farmers ? Yes, some of them arc, largely.