YH UI05 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTfeALIA f HD I31S \ C 2 b7D 171 DEFT. R E P O R T (WITH APPENDICES) OF TUK ROYAL COMMISSION (Mr. JUSTICE STREET) ON THE MEx\T EXPORT TRADE OF AUSTRALIA. Presented to Parliament bv Command of His LONDON : PllINTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE By DARLING and SON, Limited, Bacon Street, E. To be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from WYMAN AND SONS, Limited, 29, Breams Buildings, Fetter Lane, E.G., 28, AiiiNGDON Street, S.W., and 54, St. Mary Street, Cardii-f; or H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (Scottish Branch), 23. Forth Street, Edinburgh; or E. PONSONBY, Limited, 116, Grafton Street, Dublin; or from the Agencies in the British Colonies and Dependencies, the United vStates oi America and other Foreign Countries of T. FISHER UNWIN, London, W.C. [Cd. 7S96.] price h\d. 1915. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. REPORT (WITH APPENDICES) OF THK ROYAL COMMISSION (Mr. JUSTICE STREET) ON THE MEAT EXPORT TRADE OF AUSTRALIA. Presented to ParHamcnt bv Command of His IDajestVo April, J 915. LONDON: FEINTED UNDEE THE AUTHOEITY OF HIS MxVJESTYS STATIONEEY OFEICE By DAELING aisd SON, Limited, Bacox Street, E. To be puicliased. either directly or througli any Bookseller ,^ from "WTMAN .IAD SONS. Limited, 29, Beeams Buildixgs, Fetter Lane, E.G., 28, Abingdox Street, S.W., and 54:, St. Mary Street. Caedief; or H.M. STATIONEEY OFFICE (Scottish Branch), 23. Forth Street, Edinburgh; or E. PONSONBY. Limited. 116, Grafton Street, Dublin; or from the Ag'eiicies in the British Colonies and Dependencies, the United States of Americn and other Foreifjii Countries of T. FISHEE FNWIN. London, W.C. [Crl. 7-S06.] Prirr .H'/. ]'.Uf). fllS A ' The governor-general to the SECRETARY OF STATE, H) (Received 23rd March, 1915.) Governor-General's Office, Melbourne, Sir, 10th February, 1915. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith 10 copies of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Meat Export Trade of Australia. I have, &c., R. M. FERGUSON. Governor- General . The Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. GEOK(iE THK FIFTH, //// //«> Girirc of God <,f thr U,,itrd Kiwidnm of Great BriUdii (Hid Iniaiid and of the British Dominions ttci/oitd the Sens, Kinc/, Defender of the Foith, Kmperor of Indio : To ''■-''■ _ ■;" • ' ■ ; ' ' The Honourable Philip Whistler Street, ' .4 Pnisne Judge of the Supreme Court of the Staff if Xnr Smitli Wales: (lEICETINf; : KNOW YE tluil We do, liji tJiese Our Letters Patent, issued in Our name tnj Oar Governor- General if Oar Conumunreatth nf Aastralia, en-ting irit/i the adricr if Our Federal Executive Council, appoint i/on to he a Commissioner to ini/airr into and report as to tlie lyperations of any jterson, rinnhinntion, or trust tending to rreatr ang restraint of trade or nnoiopolg in connexion with till' iwport of ineut from Australia. ANI) WS require gou uith as little delag as possible to report In Our Gomrnor-General in and over (Jar said Comtnon wealth ihr result of gour inquirg into the aforesaid matters. IN TLSTI^[ON^■ WIIKREOF We have caused these Our Letters tn In- made Patent and the Seal nf tin' Cmnnninu'eallh to be affixed, thereto. •iv ■ '• .Wi'/NESS Our Bight Truslg and Well-belored HlK Ronald Graufurd Munro ...,,-,,, J FbRi";uson, a Member of His .Vajestg's Most Honouruble Privy Council, •■"'■'""'■ " ' ■ "' Knight Grand Cross of thr Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael (L.s.) and Saint George, Goverru)r-General and Connnander-in-Chief of the Conniionu-eiilth of .[uslruliu, this tiftli dag of June, in tin- gear of Our Lord One tliousunil nine liundrei/ and fourteen, and in the fifth gear . . of Our reign. .' , . ■_ . {Sgd.) B. M, FKHGUSON, .' ",, . Governor-General. I III His l\.rretlrnrg's Cooiniand, {Sgd.) J OS FPU COOK. ' '.' Entered lui record bg uie in Register of Patents, Xo. (i, page :.':.', this Jifth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and fuirleeu. [Sgd.) .¥. L. SHEPHEBD. AUSTRALIA REPORT OF THK ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE MEAT EXPORT TRADE. To His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Ronald Craufurd Munro Ferguson, « Member of His Majesty's Most Hondurahle Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Commonwealth of A ustralia. May it please Your Excellency : — I have the honour to present herewith my Report in respect of the matters which I was directed to inquire into under Your Excellency's Commission bearing date the 5th of June last. The task imposed upon me was to inquire into, and report as to, the operations of any person, combination, or trust tending to create any restraint of trade or mono- poly in connexion with the export of meat from Australia. The limited nature of my duties is made apparent by this statement of them. I was directed merely to inquire into and report as to the facts, and I was not asked to make any proposals in respect of the difficult c[uestion of how to deal effectively, by legislation or otherwise, with any detrimental combination or monopoly, if any- thing of the kind should be proved to exist. Limits of Investigation. My investigations were practically confined to matters relating to the export trade in beef, veal, mutton, and lamb. The export trade in pigs, and pig products, has hitherto been small and unimportant. I know of no features in connexion with it calling for special inquiry, and no representations were made to me from any source suggesting the existence of anything of the kind. It appears from the Official Y ear-Book of the Commonwealth that there is a small export trade in frozen pork, most of which probably goes to eastern countries, and there is a small export trade in hams and bacon. The principal exporter of hams and bacon is the J. C. Hutton Prop. Ltd., and Mr. White, the company's accountant, says that their pro- duct goes principally to the United Kingdom, and that there is not much immediate prospect of the expansion of the trade, in view of the fact that pigs can be raised much more cheaply in Ireland and Denmark than in Australia. It is possible that an export trade in pig products may be developed with the ITnited States of America in the future. States Visited. In the course of my inquiries I visited, and took evidence in, the States of Victoria, New South Wales, -Queensland, and South Australia. In each State which I visited I took evidence in the capital city, i.e., in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and Adelaide; and in Queensland I visited and took evidence in the following additional towns, i.e., Townsville, Rockhampton, and Toowoomba. If it had appeared that any useful purpose would be served by visiting any other towns, either inland or on the seaboard, I should have done so, but nothing which was disclosed, in the course of the evidence or otherwise, afforded any ground for supposing that any material <468!>— 1.) Wt. :!:-i;in— G 387. i'..->oo. -,nr,. D&S. G 1.3221X''-) A 2 facts could be elicited in any particular town, and a roving inquiry throughout the towns of the different States without any clue indicating one rather than another as a likely source of information would have involved an unjustifiable expenditure of time and money. In this connexion I may mention that, in dealing with various rumours regard- ing certain alleged transactions in live-stock and in land, I caused letters to be sent to the stock and station agents in the various towns of the different States which I visited asking for replies to certain specific questions put to them. This is a matter to which I shall have to refer again with more particularity at a later stage, but I mention it now for the purpose of saying that nothing in the replies which I received suggested the desirableness of visiting any country town. Mr. Dunn's evidence concerning the stories, which he heard at Coonamble, as to the purchases and plans of Morris and Coy., of Chicago, and of other American companies, may be put out of consideration. Perha]:)S he lent too credulous an ear to stories which others were ready to tell him, but, however this may be, the statements to which he apparently gave credence cannot be taken seriously. It so happened, in point of fact, that, at about the same period of time as that spoken of, Mr. Mark Morris, a wholesale meat salesman of Melbourne, who sells entirely to the local trade, was drawing the greater portion of his supplies of live-stock from the Coonamble district. Export of Live-stock from Western x\ustralia. I did not visit either Western Australia or Tasmania. There is no export trade in meat from either of these States, and though there is some export of live-stock from Western Australia, it is small and unimportant in character. The following figures were supplied to me l)y the Department of Trade and Customs : — Eccport of Live-stock from Western Australia. Number. Value. Cattle— 1912— To Jaya Philippines 1913— To Java ... Philippines Singapore 4.315 9,625 £19,257 29,968 13,940 £49,225 5,491 8,373 1 £25,137 25,033 15 13.865 £48,185 22,295 40 £10,942 30 22,335 £10,972 27,360 £15,156 Sheep — 1912 — To Singapore Java . . . 1913 — To Singapore PRELIMINARY. Before proceeding to deal with the evidence it may be convenient to refer shortly, at this stage, to the conditions under which the trade is carried on, the availalile supplies of live-stock, and the persons, firms, and companies engaged in the trade. Regulations Affecting the Meat Export Trade. No restrictions are |)lace(l by the law in the way of jjcrsons who desin- to engage in the trade. Subject to coiii[)liaii(-e with the jn'ovisions of the Legislature, and of tlie regulations made under legislative authority, there is nothing to prevent any ])erson possessed of the necessary capital and enter|)rise from entering into it. Nor has the Legislature, in the conditions which it has prescribed governing the export of meat, interfered further than appeared reasonably necessar}'- for the purpose of insurino- that meat exported from Australia should be free from disease, and fit for human consumption. Rules under Commerce Act. By virtue of a proclamation issued under section 112 of the Customs Act 1901- 1910 the exportation of meat from Australia is prohibited, unless it has been certified to be fit for export by an inspector apjiointed under the Commerce {Trade Descrip- tions) Act 1905. In the case of meat intended for export the procedure prescribed by the regulations framed under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act is shortly to the following eflect. Power is conferred upon the Comptroller-General of Customs to appoint, in writing, certain places where goods intended for export may be inspected and examined. Such places are known as " appointed places." All slaughtering premises at which live-stock is slaughtered for export are made appointed places, and an inspector is stationed at each whose duty it is to inspect and examine all stock so slaughtered. Slaughtering and freezing are not always done at the same establish- ment, but all meat, if passed for export, must, except in the case of preserved meat, be placed in some cool store which has been made an appointed place, and kept at a temperature not exceeding 20 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot be removed from the store in which it has been placed without the authority of a departmental officer. All meat passed as fit for export is marked with a stamp.. If it is not under fair average quality it is marked as " a'pproved for export,"' and if it is under fair average quality it is marked merely as " passed for export." In addi- tion, in the case of carcass meat, the inspecting officer certifies, in each case, that the meat is free from disease, and suitable in every way for human consumption. The regulations provide that the mark or stamp may be applied to that portion of the goods or covering which bears the trade description prescribed by the Act, but, in practice, in the case of carcass meat, a tag or label is affixed to the carcass. On one side of this tag or label the prescribed trade description is printed, while the other side contains the mark or stamp and the certificate. Any person intending to export meat must give written notice of his intention to the Customs, and no expor- tation can take place until an export permit has been issued by the examining officer. This is not issued until the provisions of the regulations have been complied with, and before it is issued the meat is, if necessary, examined again in the cool store. These provisions, and in particular the prohibition against the removal from the cool store, without the authority of a departmental officer, of meat which has been placed there after being examined and passed for export, clearly indicate that the framers of them did not contemplate or intend that departmental control should cease as soon as meat had been examined and placed in a cool store. It was some- what surprising, therefore, to find that Mr. Maison, of the Melbourne Ice Skating and Refrigerating Co., Ltd., and Mr. Sennitt, of Sennitt and Sons Prop. Ltd., two companies which freeze and store meat in Melbourne for exporters, both spoke as though, in the case of meat tagged and passed for export, the owner's authority was all that was required to enable it to be removed from the cool store. Obviously this is not so. If the regulations are strictly observed, the authority of a depart- mental officer is necessary, in addition to that of the owner, before removal. It would seem, too, that the regulations, if strictly complied with, ought to be sufficient to obviate the possibilities of danger spoken of by Dr. Johnston, the State Supervising Officer of Meat in Victoria under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act.. Meat which has been inspected and passed for export cannot go directly into local consumption, but must, within twelve hours after inspection, go into a cool store at an appointed place, and, as it cannot be removed from the store without the authority of an officer, any possible misuse of the tags or labels can be prevented by taking them off before authorizing the meat to be taken out of store for local •consumption. Practice in New South Wales. Before passing away from the I'egulations a circumstance in connexion with them came under my notice to which I tliink I should call attention. Certificates, issued under the regulations, certifying that meat is suitable for human consumption, state that it has been "examined and found by ante mortem and post-mortem inspection to be free from disease and suitable in every way for human consump- tion.'" In New South Wales the supervision and inspection of meat for export IS undertaken by the State Department of Public Health under an arrangement with the Commonwealth Government, and Mr. Thorpe, the Veterinary Inspector in charge of meat exi)ort in that State, stated in his evidence that no antp-mortem inspection of sheep is made by his officers.* I subsequently wrote to Mr. Thorpe, asking for precise information as to the practice adopted in respect of the ante- mortem inspection of sheep and cattle slaughtered for exjwrt, and at the same time I wrote to Dr. Johnston, the State Su]iervising Officer of Meat in Victoria, to Mr. Kerr, the Chief Veterinary Inspector in Queensland, and to Mr. Pope, the General Manager of the Government Produce Department in South Australia.! asking for similar information. The replies which I received indicate that the practice adopted in respect of sheep varies in the different States. In Victoria and in Queensland ojite-mortem inspection takes place. In New South Wales there is no official ante- mortem inspection, and in South Australia, though an ins])ector occasionally goes through the pens, ante-m.ortem inspection is not rigidly carried out. If certificates are to continue to be issued in their present form, it is imperative that the practice in New South Wales and South Australia should be brought into line with that in the other States. Certificates should not be misleading as to the facts certified to. Mr. Thorpe's remarks in his letter (Appendix A) as to the ante-mortem inspec- tion in New South Wales of cattle which are slaughtered for export, but which do not pass through the saleyards at Flemington, are also deserving of attention. SuppLiKS OF Live Stock. — Live Stock in States. A tabulated statement showing the numbers of cattle and sheep in the several States and Territories of the Commonwealth at the close of each year from 1904 to 1913 inclusive is set out in Appendix B hereafter. In respect both of cattle and of sheep the figures for 1913, taken as a whole, show a substantial increase over those for 1901, but the increase has not been continuous from year to year, and there have been very marked fluctuations attributable to the ravages of drought and other causes. In New South Wales, which possesses more sheep than the aggregate number in the other States engaged in the meat export trade, and upwards of 46 per cent, of the total number in the Commonwealth, it is noticeable that there was a steady decline in numbers from 1909 to 1912, and, though the numbers rose again in 1912, they are still very much below those of 1901. In that year there were upwards of 41,857.000 sheep in the State. Queensland possesses more cattle than the aggregate number in the other States referred to, and more than 46 per cent, of the total number in the Commonwealtii, but, though the numbers in that State show an increase in each year from 1904 onwards — except in 1911, when there was a small decrease — they are, as Mr. Bunning pointed out, still con- siderably lower than the numbers of 1894. In that year there were upwards of 7.000,000 cattle in the State. If, too, it is the ease, as Mr. A. H. Wittingham, the President of the Pastoral lunployers' Association of Central and Northern Queensland, stated in his presi- dential address last May, that in order to maintain the pastoral industry in a sound jiosition the average annual increase — after allowing for natural losses, local con- sumption, and export — should be, for cattle, at least 10 per cent., and, for sheep, at least 15 ])er cent., tlie jiosition cannot be regarded as satisfactory. If a period of ten years from 1904 to 1913 be taken it will a])pear that, in respect both of cattle and of sheep, this average annual increase has not been maintained, either in the Commonwealth as a whole, or in any one of the four States engaged in the export trade in mea.t. Exports of Frozen Me.^t. Unsatisfactory, however, as the increase in his herds and flocks may appear to the pastoralist, it is, I tliink, indisputable that the production of beef, mutton, and lamb suitable for export has not hitherto been commensurate with the capacity of the Commonwealtii. Tlie statements set out hereafter in Appendix C show the total * I find th;it evidence to tlie same effect was iriven by Mr. Vyner, the Cliief Veterinary Inspector of the Dejiartinent, before the Commission appointed l)y the Qneenshind Government to in(|uire into mattofs I'elatinp to tlie meat industry. t At the present time tlie whole of the stock slaus^htered for export in South .\uatralia is slaughtered at the Ooveinment I'lodnce Depot. ■ • :■ ' export of these products from the Commonwealth, and from each of the four export- ing States, for the years 1904 to 1913 inclusive, and for the hrst four months of the present year. The quantities exported to the United Kingdom and to the United States of America are shown separately, but those to all other countries are grouped together. Detailed information in respect of these was supplied to me, but as the information is available in the Commonwealth Trade Interchange I do not think that it is necessary to print it as an appendix to this Report. A falling off in the supply of home-grown beef, mutton, and lamb to the^marl^ets of the United Kingdom, the opening of a new market in the X'nited States of America, and a general shortage in the world's supjilies of meat, led to an increase in the prices paid by exporters, which was responded to by a very large increase in the exports from Australia in 1913. The figures speak for themselves, and W. Weddel and Co., Ltd., in the Annual Review of the Frozen Meat Trade for that year, referring to the imports into the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth, say, " The arrivals of beef and mutton from that source during 1913 established fresh records, while the quantity of lamb imported in 1913 has onl}- twice been exceeded." Increase in Consumption in United Kingdom. Frozen meat is lower in price in England than either chilled meat or home-grown meat. The demand for it comes therefore very largely from the poorer classes, and their prosperity is a material factor in the development of the export trade with the United Kingdom. Mr. Shaw, the Managing Director of the Gladstone Meat Works, Mr. A. A. Elder, the Acting Director in Victoria of John Cooke and Company, Mr. Balderstone, the Manager in Victoria of Thomas Borthwick and Sons, and Mr. Nevanas, of S. V. Nevanas and Company, all expressed the opinion that the increased demand for imported meat in England was due to the increased prosperity of the people, and Mr. Shaw submitted some figures, said to have been extracted from official publications, purporting to show an increase in the consumption of fresh and refrigerated beef and mutton imported into England, between 1907 and 1913 inclusive, altogether out of proportion to the increase in population during the same period. I do not think, however, that the inference of a strikingly large increase in consumption, which Mr. Shaw sought to draw from the figures, is borne out on closer investigation and more careful scrutiny. He evidently took his figures as to the annual imports of fresh and refrigerated beef and mutton from the annual statements of the trade of the United Kingdom compiled in the Statistical Office of the Imperial Customs and Excise Department, but in drawing the inference tliat there was an increase of consumption proportionate to the increase in these imports he omitted to take two factors into consideration. He made no allowance for the re-export of imported beef or mutton, whereas the fact is, as appears from the same statements, that the export of fresh and refrigerated beef from the United Kingdom grew from 660 tons in 1907 to 12,659 tons in 1913, and the export of fresh and refrigerated mutton grew in the same period from 282 tons to 662 tons ; and he omitted to take into consideration the fact that the importation of refri- gerated meat was very largely increased by the diminution in the importation of live-stock for consumption. According to the figures published by W. Weddel and Co.,, Ltd., in their Annual Reviews of the Frozen Meat Trade, the supply of meat from imported live-stock dropped in the case of beef from 151,719 tons in 1907 to 4,739 tons in 1913, and in the case of mutton from 2,828 tons to 13^ tons. According, moreover, to the same figures the total importations in the form of live- stock, fresh killed, chilled, and frozen meat — without making any deductions for re-export— only increased, in the case of beef, from 438,469 tons in 1907 to 464,904 tons in 1913, an increase of 26,435 tons, or a little over 6 per cent. ; and, in the case mutton, from 232,434 tons in 1907 to 266,932 tons in 1913, an increase of 34,498 tons, or about lOi per cent. Important, therefore, as the prosperity and purchasing power of the English peo]ile have been, and must be, as factors in the growth and development of the exi)ort trade in meat, it is apparent that there has not been anything like so large an increase in consumption in the United Kingdom as that suggested by Mr. Shaw. Taking again the figures published by W. Weddel and Co., Ltd., in their Annual Review, the total supplies of beef, mutton, and lamb from all sources, including home-grown produce — but again without making any deduction in respect of meat re-exported — only grew from 1,771,183 tons in 1907 to 1,827,136 tons in 1913, an increase of 155,953 tons, or a little more than 88 per ■cent. During the same period the population increased by a little over 5 per cent. Expansion of Trade. Until the present outbreak of war in Europe intervened to disturb all caleula tions and forecasts as to the future, both pastoralist and exporter were looking forward to a continuation of a strong demand, and a continuation of a higher level of prices. It does not fall within my province to discuss this pliase of the matter in any detail, but it is a matter of common knowledge that the growth of the export trade and the increase of smaller holdings, as a result of closer settlement, have combined to bring about a recognition of the value of good mutton-producing, as well as wool-producing, qualities in the breeding of sheep, and the consequent pro- duction of a class of sheep and lamb possessing a carcass suitable for export. Hitherto the bulk of the supplies of mutton and lamb has come from the southern States, principally from New South Wales and Victoria; and it is probable that under normal conditions the export trade in mxitton and lamb from these States will be very largely developed in the future. The exports of mutton and lamb from Queensland have not been very considerable in the past, but, as the country becomes more closely settled, it is probable that that State will take a very much larger part in the export trade in mutton and lamb than she has hitherto done. In respect of beef, it is improbable that the southern States will take a large part in the export trade in future. The production of beef cattle in those States is giving way to the production of dairy cattle. In fact, though the figures compiled by the Stock Branch of the Department of Agriculture in New South Wales show a small increase in the number of cattle in that State for 1913, differing in this respect from the figi;res comj)iled by the Commonwealth authorities,* Mr. Symons, the Chief Inspector for Stock in the State, says that, though for some years until 1912 there was a steady increase in the number of cattle, the increase was in the dairying districts, and there was a marked decrease in beef cattle.. The figures relating to live-stock set out in Appendix B show that at the close of 1913 Queensland possessed more than 46 per cent, of the cattle in the Commonwealth, and the figures in Appendix C relating to the quantities of beef exported show that, in that year, out of a total exi)ort of 218,918,606 lbs. of beef, valued at £2,652.275, Queensland's share was 188,538,120 lbs., valued at £2,231,972, or, in other Avords. upwards of 86 per cent, of the total quantity exported from the Commonwealth, and upwards of 84 per cent, of the value of that export. As the stock-carrying capacity of the country increases with development, it is probable that in the future the supplies of beef cattle for the export trade will be derived principally from the central and northern parts of Australia. Mr. Bunning, a Queensland grazier, and a member of a Royal Commission appointed in 1912 by the Queensland Government to inquire into a number of matters relating to the meat industry in Queensland, expressed the o]iinion that two-thirds of the area of land in Queensland capable of carrying stock is practically unoccupied, and that the number of sheep and cattle in the State might be doubled." Mr. Robert Archer, of Gracemere, a grazier of large experience in the Central district of Queensland, also expressed the opinion that, Avith develop- ment and an increase of smaller holdings. Queensland would be capable of carrying twice as many cattle as it is now doing, and botli he and Mr. Bunning said that the increased prices of stock were encouraging pastoralists to increase their herds. Mr. Archer breeds bulls for sale to pastoralists who raise beef cattle, and he has never known the demand for bulls to be so keen as it has been during the last eight or nine months. The confidence of ex{)orters in the development and permanence of the trade is indicated by the activity which has been manifested, during the last two years, b}- an extension of tlie capacity of existing works and by the entrance of new competitors into the trade. Within approximately that period' of time the following new works have been estal:)lished in Queensland : — New Works. (1) Tliomas Borthvvick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd. have erected the Moreton Freezing Works on the Brisbane River. These works were opened in April, 1913. • As explained in tlie Annual Report of tlie Stock Branch of the Department of Agriculture, and by Mr. Kymon.'^, this di(r( rence in numbers arises from a difference in the method of colU'cting returns. For statistical purposes returns are collected by the police, whereas the figures of the Stock Branch of the Deitartmeiit of Agriculture are based upon the stock returns submitted by Stock Inspectors under the Pastures I'rotection Acts, and, as a rule, forms are only sent to poisons who have a sufVicient n'lmber of stock to I'ender them liable to assessment. They have a killing capacity of 230 cattle a day, or 140 cattle and 1,000 sheep a day. and a storage capacity of 1.000 tons. (2) The Rosewarne Queensland Ltd., a recently formed company, was established for the purpose of carrying on the business of meat preserving at Brisbane, and Ix'gaii business there about July. 1913. It is capable of handling 150 cattle a day. (3) The Biboohra Meat Export Coy. was formed in September, 1912, for the purpose of acquiring a meat works at Cairns which had ceased to be in operation for some fourteen years. The company carries on the business of meat jireserving, and, according to the evidence of Mr. Kerr, the Chief Veterinary Surgeon for the Com- monwealth in Queensland, is ca])able of handling from 80 to 100 cattle a day. Mr. Warner, the chairman of directors. ]nits the capacity at from 120 to 150 a day. (4) The Australian Meat Ex})ort Coy. Ltd. — as to the connexion of which with Swift and Coy., of Chicago. I shall have something to say later — has been established, and has erected works on tlie Brisbane River, which were opened at the beginning of last June. Although already in opei-ation they are not yet coiupleted. but when •finished they will have a killing cajiacity of 500 cattle and 2.500 sheep a day, and a storage ca|)acity of 1,700 tons. Within ajiproximately the same period of time the following companies carrying on business in Queensland have increased their killing capacity : — The Queensland Meat Ex))ort and Agency Coy. Ltd.. the Gladstone Meat Works.'of Queensland, Ltd.., the Burdekin River Meat Preserving Coy. Ltd., John Cooke and Coy., and the Central Queensland Meat Export Coy. Ltd. The increase in each case was in res])ect of the capacity to handle cattle, and it amounts in all to an increase in killing- capacity of 975 cattle a day. In addition to these increases the Australian Meat Export Coy. jiurchased from the North Queensland Meat Export Coy. its meat ]n'eserving business at Alligator Creek, near Townsville. The works are at present capable of handling from 200 to 240 cattle a day, but they are being enlarged, and refrigerating machinery is being introduced, and when these extensions and improve- ments are comjdeted they will liave a killing capacity of 500 cattle and 2,000 sheep a day and a storage cajiacity of 1.300 tons. PURCH.ASES OF L.4ND. I mav mention, too. in this connexion, that Mr. Ano-liss, of W. Anoli-ss and Cov.. has bought land at Townsville with tlie object of erecting freezing works, but before proceeding with them he is awaiting to see how the trade will develop; and that Morris and Coy., of Chicago, have exercised their option of purchase — spoken of by Mr. Uhlmann and Air. Cameron, in giving evidence at Brisbane — over 420 acres of land on the Brisbane River, adjoining the Moreton Freezing Works. Vestey Brothers. In addition, moreover, to this evidence of activity in the trade in Queensland. Vestey Brothers, of Smithfield, London, who are largely interested in the Union Cold Storage Coy. and in W. and R. Fletcher Ltd., pro{Wse to establish freezing- works at or near Darwin, in the Northern Territory, and have recently entered into an agreement with the Minister of State for External Affairs in connexion with the facilitation of their plans, under which they have agreed to begin the erection of the works not later than the 1st of May next, and to expend upon them not less than £100.000. Either the same firm or the L^nion Cold Storage Coy. has recently purchased pastoral properties in the Northern Territorv. said to contain about 12.000,000 acres and about 240,000 cattle. Enlargement of Brooklyx Works. In Victoria, Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd. are duplicating the slaughtering capacity of their Brooklyn works, and when the alterations are completed, ap they probably are by this time, the capacity of the works will be 6.000 sheep, or lambs, a day. Supplies of Cattle. In considering the evidence as to the additional facilities recently provided in Queensland for the treatment of cattle at meat works it has to be borne in mind that, as the pastoral industry is at present carried on, supplies of cattle suitable for the export trade are not available all the yeai- round. Though some works may be more 4t;S!) B 10 or less busy for longer periods, there is, generally speaking, an annual season of from five to seven months during which stock are in the best condition for export, and during vvdiich the meat works are employed to the fullest extent of their capacity in order to absorb the available supplies of live-stock before they begin to lose condition. The table set out hereafter in Appendix D, giving particulars relating to the firms engaged in the meat export trade, shows that the daily killing capacity of the meat works in Queensland is 4,370 cattle, and. according to the figures supplied by Mr. Kerr, 452,760 cattle were slaughtered at the various meat works last year. Some of these, no doubt, went into local consumption, but, taking the figures as they stand, they represent supplies for killing for a little over 100 days. Tested in this way the existing facilities would appear to be more than adequate for present requirements, and, in fact, more than one witness took this view and looked forward to an era of more strenuous competition, with increased prices for the pastoralist and the possible exclusion from the trade of the weaker competitors among the exporters. Others took a brighter view of the future. They thought that there was room for great expansion in the supplies of cattle, and that the expansion of the export trade, and the higher level of j^rices likely to prevail, would prove a sufficient inducement to i>astoralists and farmers to provide increased supplies. More than one witness looked forward to the development of fattening as -a distinct occupation from that of breeding stock, and foresaw a large increase in the supply from the cultivation by farmers and small holders of artificial grasses and crops on coastal and other lands adapted for fattening purposes. If this development should come about, it will lead to an extension of the period during which fat stock suitable for export can be put upon the market; and, in fact, Mr. Malkow, the managing director of the Australian Meat Export Coy., stated that he was going to try and w^ork all the year round, and that he hoped to make it successful. When asked if the conditions in the industry were such that he could count with any degree of confidence on getting a regular supply of stock, he replied, "' I think it must come in time. If the Queensland pastoralists realize that they must handle their stock so that it can be marketed the year round, only then can a regular established Australian meat industry be built up which will warrant them expecting the prices for their live-stock which are olitained in other parts of the world If you want to build up a market for the Australian product in England or the United States of America, you will have to keep going the twelve months round, or other- wise they will have to draw their supply from sources where they can have them regularly." Nor did Mr. Malkow share the fears entertained by other witnesses as to the capacity of the i-ailw^ays to handle larger numbers of stock. He thought that this was a matter Avhich would take care of itself, and that, if the people produced oastoral products which they w^anted transported over the railways, facilities would be provided to cope with the production. Export of Ve.\l. Although the matter does not, perhaps, fall properly within the scope of my inquiries, I wish, before passing away from the evidence bearing on the question of su))plies of cattle, to call attention to the evidence given as to the growth of the export of veal and as to the necessity — if the herds of this country are to be kept up to their [proper number.s — of placing some restriction u])on the slaughter of female calves. The export trade in this product hitherto has not been of sufficient magnitude to lead to the recording of separate statistical information in respect of it. In the English market prices have, as a rule, been insufficient to induce shipments. In the United States, on the other hand, the demand for it is said to be very great, and in some quarters the excessive slauglitering of calves is regarded as a tnatei'inl factor in the diminution in numbers (d' the cattle herds in that countiy. In a report on the conditions of the beef industry in the I'nited States in 1908. by Mr. George Young, the Secretary in Chai'ge of Commercial .\ffairs at the British Embassy in Washington, it is stated that "the growing demand foi' veal, combined with the growth of dairying and the increased cost of maize, has also tended to increase cnnsidernblv the percentage of calves slaughtered, wliich must in time affect, and probaldy already has affected, the supply." I find tiiat a sinular view as to the effect of the demand for veal is held by Swift and Co., of Chicago. Mr. Pearse has 11 shown me a copy of that company's Year-Book, published in January, 1913, in which the matter is dealt with as follows : — Oue of the most efifective methods of increasing the beef supply of the country and thereby lessening the prevailing high prices of beef would be the restriction of the sale of veal. The United States is the greatest veal-consuming country in the world. Its demand for veal is so great that the numlier of cafves slaughtered has increased 100 per cent, in the past decade. In the United States during 1911 there were slaughtered 8,000.000 calves. These 8,000,000* calves did not average over 70 pounds. If they had been allowed to live oue year they would have averaged 6011 pounds of good beef, and would have given to the country 4,800,000,000 pounds of beef instead of onlv 560,000,000 pounds of meat. According to a conservative estimate, this 4,000,000,000 odd pounds woiild furnish a city of 3.50,000 ))eople with its total meat supply for over 50 years. This gives some idea of the country's immediate loss of beef supply by the slaughter of calves. South America is, or was previously, a close second to the United States in the consumption of veal. This country long since recognised the danger in destroying the basis of future beef production and took measures for the conservation of the live stock industry. Laws were enacted making it an offence, subject to a severe penalty, to slaughter female calves, heifers, or cows under six years of age. The purpose of these laws was to increase the breeding herds. The results have been altogether beneficial, and in no sense deleterious. I have been unable to obtain a copy of the legislation referred to in Swift and Co.'s Year-Book. or of the Act imposing an export tax on calves referred to by Mr. Pearse in his evidence. The figures contained in the following table have been supplied by the super- vising officers for meat in the diiTerent States, and they show the exports from Australia during recent years. The information supplied to me in respect of Victoria does not go further back than July, 1911. There was no shipment from South Australia prior to the 1913-1914 season. Apparently there has been no export from Queensland. CarCxVsses of Veal Exported. New South Wales. Victoria. Soui li Australia. Total Exports. , To U.S.A. Total Exports. Tot' il Exports. 1910 (.Julv-December) 1911 ..." 1912 1913 1914 (,]anuary-Juue) 2,329 10,637 16,238 13,971 9,174 1,288 851 3,671 5,037 7,757 2.75St 3,355 5,049 7,296t l,429ii t July-December oulv. J .January -May onh\ ^ Season 1913-1914. The shipments from South Australia all went to the United Kingdom. I have not been able to obtain official information as to the quantities shipped to the United States from Victoria; but, from a return handed in by Mr. Crowe, the Superintendent of Exports in Victoria, it appears that 4,443 carcasses were shipped to New York in March and April of this year, and shipments have been made to the west coast as well as to the east. The figures indicate that, though the total export is not very considerable in quantity, there has been a very consideral^le increase in the exports to the United States since the removal of the im]3ort duty. Mr. Cordner, the chairman of the Stock Salesmen's Association in ^lelbourne, says that since the beginning of the year the supplies of ])rime young veal have been insufficient to meet the demand, and that it has been rumoured among the salesmen that export inquiries Avere accountable to some extent for the increased demand. Mr. Angliss also spoke of the big demand for veal. Mr. Pear,se is very emphatic in his belief that, if the unrestricted slaughter- ing of female calves is allowed to continue, the effect on the future of the meat export trade will be very serious, and he feels so strongly on the subject that in June last he wrote to the Prime Minister calling his attention to the matter. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Elder both think that the unrestricted export of female calves is likely * I have Ijeen unable to obtain any statistical records of the United States for the purpose of checking these figures, but the number is surprisinErly large. Mr. Cherry in his report says that the number of cattle slaughtered under Federal inspection in the United States in 1911 was 7,781,030. and the number of calves 2,219,908. I do not know how many cattle are slaughtered otherwise than under Federal inspection. 4 680 B 2 12 to feduce the (.-attic In'eediiit^ capacity of the country, and that it shouhl l)c pro- hibited. Mr. Sharpe, the member for the Oxley Division in the House of Repre- sentatives, is also of opinion that legislation should be ])assed to prevent the whole- sale slaughtering of young l)reeding calves. On the otiier hand. Mr. Corchier and "Ml'. Angliss both tliink that the increasing demand for veal involves no dangcT' to the su[)plies of cattle. It is outside the sco])e of my duties to express an opinion in the matter, and T have not sufficient information to enable me to do so, but. having regard t(T the 0])inions entertained by the witnesses whom T have mentioned as to the danger of allowing unrestricted slaughter of calves. T tliink that the matter is sufficiently serious to call for further consid(>ration with a ^•ie\v to actioji. if necessary, of a preventive character. MEAT WORKS IN AUSTRALIA. Firms eng.^^ged in the Export Tr.\de. A li.st of the principal firms, companies, and persons engaged in the export trade in meat, which is as accurate as I have been able to make it. will be found in Appendix D. It contains particulars as to the nature f)f the business carried on in each case. and. in a(hlition. whci'c it is available, information as to distributing agencies. It does not include small or occasional exporters. Carcass butchers who .sell dead meat to ex])orters, slaughtering establishments which slaughter for exporters who buy on the hoof but have no works of their own, and freezing stores, where freezing is done for exporters, are also omitted. These subsiiliary instrumentalities cannot be classed as exporters. I have, further, omitted firms which act solelv as commission agents, such as Elder, Smith, and Coy.. Gibbs. Bright, and Coy., and Harrison, Jones, and Devlin Ltd. r.\8T0R.'VJ. HOLOINGS. Among the companies mentioned, the following, in addition to purchasing stock for treatment and export, are also the holders of jiastoial pinperties in Queensland from which they draw a proportion of their supplies : — Thomas Boithwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd., Centra! Queensland Meat Export Coy. Ltd.. Gladstone Meat Works of Queensland Ltd., and Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy. Ltd. The Fitzroy Estates Ltd.. an English company, has ircently ])UT'cliascd, through Mr. Hop])er, the manager of the Central Queensland Meat Ex])ort Coy. Ltd.. a pastoral iiroperty in Queensland in the Clermont district containing about 1.000 square miles of country. I do not know in what preci.se relation these two companies stand to one another, i^it tlie principal sharelKilders in each are the same persons. It has been rumoured that the property in question was purchased on behalf of an American com])any, but Mr. Hoppei' gives this an emphatic denial, and T see no reason to doubt his word. ScopF. OF Activities. The following information, relating to the di(Ten>nt activities of the companies and firms mentioned in the list, and to the as.sociations and community of interests which exist in some cases between different exporters, or between expoiters and distributing agencies abroad, is interesting in its bearing upon the question of existin<)' facilities for effectivt> comliinatioii or' control in one direcfion or another. WUlinjii Ainiliss iiiiil Ciiij. /.^/.— This coiiipauy cari'ii's on a I'ctail l)utchering Itusiness in Melbourne in addition to its expoi't business. It also holds ,\ oue-tliifd interest in the Rivcrina Meal Comj)aiiy P?'oprietar\- Limited. .■\ >/.■^tates of America, i.e.. six members of the Swift family and two other gentlemen who are interested with them. The members of the Sw^ift family w'ho are interested are also interested in the Swift Beef Coy., of London, and in Swift and Coy., of Chicago. Buynes Brotlicrs. — This firm, m addition to exporting canned meat and selling dead meat to exportei's, is also engaged in the wholesale and retail Initchering trade at Brisbane. Birt (ind Coy. Ltd. — The managing director of this company is also the manag- ing director of the Burdekin River Meat Preserving Coy. Ltd. The Stock Realiza- tion Coy. — a company registered in Lngland — holds the majority of the shares in the Burdekin Ri\er Meat Preserving Coy., and Birt and Coy. holds the majority of the shares in the Stock Realization Coy. The remaining .shareholders in this com- pany are the British India Coy., the Federal Steam Navigation Coy., and Turnbull, Martin, and Coy., the owners of the Shire steamshi]) line. The ships of the tw^o last- named companies carry frozen meat, and they are reju-esented in New South Wales by Birt and Coy. ThoiiKis Borthirick ti/nl Sons (Aiist ralnsiu I Ltd. — This is a subsidiary company to Thomas Borthwick Ltd.. an English company. Its business is to provide sup])lies for the English company, which has six stalls at Smithfield and carries on the busi- ness of general distributors throughout England. The Australian company holds one-third of the shares in the Riverina Meat Company Projnietary Limited. Burdekin Rircr Meat Preserrina Coy. Ltd. — I have already called attention to the link between this comjiany and Birt and Coy. John Cooke and Coy. aLso hold a substantial interest in it, upwards of one-third of the shares being iield by Mr. Cooke and Mr. Elder, two of the directors. Central Queensland Meat Export Coy. Ltd. — I have already called attention to the links between this company and the Australian Chilling and Freezing Coy. in Australia and the Colonial Consignment and Distrilniting Coy. in England. The Colonial Consignment and Distributing Coy. has two stalls at Smithfield. and dis- tributing depots throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland. John Cooke and Comp(vny Proprietary Ltd. — This company holds a one-third interest in the Riverina Meat Com])any Propi'ietary Ltd.. and upwards of one- third of the shares in the Burdekin River Meat Preserving Coy. In addition to carrying on the business of exporting it has a controlling interest in a wholesale and retail butchering business carried on in Melliourne and suburbs under the name of T. K. Bennett and Woolcock Pro]:)rietary Limited, and it carries on a retail business in Brisbane under the name of F. J. Moore and Coy. W. and R. Fletcher Ltd. — This is an English company with a branch in Australia, which it uses for the purpose of purchasing, freezing, and shii:)ping sii])plies for its English business. In England it owns between 400 and 500 shops and it deals in frozen meat wholesale and retail. The controlling interest in tlie company is held liy the firm of Vestey Brothers, who also hold a controlling interest in the Union Cold Storage Coy., and w^ho, as I have mentioned previously, propose to establish freezing w^orks in the Northern Territory. J. W. Harding and Coy. — Mr. W. A. Thom])son, the owner of this business, is one of the three jirincipal shareholders in Rosewarne (Queensland) Ltd. Robert Little and Coy. — This firm is part owner of the Kensington Preserving Com))any Proprietary Limited. Queensland Meat Export and A (jency Coy. Ltd. — This company is one of a group of four which appeal- to be clo.sely related to one another, the other three being G. S. Yuill and Coy. Ltd.. of Sydney, and Yuill's Ltd. and tlie Stockbreeders' Meat Coy., of England. According to the evidence of Mr. Colman, the general manager of the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy., the product of that com])anv is handled in England by Yuill's Ltd.. whicli passes it on to the Stockbreeders' Meat Coy., a subsidiary distributing company with a stall at Smithfield and six or seven depots in different parts of England. The Stockbreeders' Meat Coy. belongs i)racti- cally to the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy. Mr. G. S. Yinll is the principal shareholder in the Queensland Meat Ex])ort and Agencv Cov. and in G. S. Yuill and Coy. Ltd.. and Mr. Lethbridge. the manager of the latter companv, is on the directorate of both. G. S. Yuill and Coy. Ltd.' holds the majoi'ity of the shares in Yuill's Limited. The Riverina Meat Cowpany Proprietary Ltd. — The headquarters of this com- pany are at Deniliipiin. in New South Wales, and I have alreadv iiointed out that 14 the shares in it are held in equal proportions by W. Angliss and Coy., Thomas Borthwick, and Sons (Australasia) Ltd., and John Cooke and Coy. Originally started as a co-operative concern amongst the stock-raisers in the district, it was unsuccessful, and its property and plant came into the market for sale. Each of the three companies who are now^ the co-owners was anxious to buy for itself, but each apparently entertained doubts as to the profit-earning capacity of the business in the hands of one if exposed to the competition of the other two. They agreed, therefore, to buy in conjunction with one another, and after carrying on the business in partnership for two years they converted it into a company. The powers con- tained in the memorandum of association are wide enough to enable the company to carry on the business of a meat exporter in any part of Australia, but, though it exported its product in the 1910-1911 season, it has not done so since, and its operations are at present confined to purchasing live-stock, slaughtering it, freezing it. and delivering it f.o.b. at Melbourne in equal proportions to the three co-owning companies, each of which makes its own arrangements for shipment and realization of its share. The profit-earning capacity of the company lies in its treatment of the by-products, and in its ability to treat and deliver the stock at a lower cost than the estimated amount allowed to it for that purpose by the shareholders, and the net result of its opei'ations during the two completed seasons — 1910-1911 and 1911- 1912 — that it hits been at work, since it was acquired by its present owners, has been a profit so small as to be negligible. It limits its purchases of live-stock to a specified area fixed by the directors w'ithin the Riverina district in New South Wales, and only buys outside that area in the event of the supplies of stock within it becoming exhausted. So far as sellers of stock are concerned, the practical result of this combination of interests is that within the area from which supplies are drawn the number of buyers is reduced by two. but there is no evidence to suggest that this partial elimination of competition injuriously affects the prices obtained. It is well known to sellers that the three companies concerned do not compete against one another, but there are other buyers competing in the same area, and, jirobably all jirudent and business-like sellers adopt the same course as that spoken of by Mr. Falconer, the manager of the Australian Mercantile, Land, and Finance Coy. Ltd., a:id refuse to sell at prices which are relatively lower than those obtainable in Sydney or Melbourne. Mr. Falconer says that his company protects itself in this way, and that, in his experience, there is no difference between the level of prices obtainable within the district round about the Riverina w^orks and those obtainable elsewhere. I cannot, of course, predict what use the company may make in the future of its very extensive powers, but as its business is at present carried on it is apparent that the combination of the co-owners is limited to the preparation of the product for export. In respect of the exportation of its share each acts independently of, and ■s in competition with, the others. Mr. Angliss says that his company has never made a profit on the sale of its share. He attributes this to the increased cost) of working in the country, and he regards the inability to work as economically in the country as in tlie metro]")olis as the obstacle wdiich stands in the way of making a financial success of the Riverina works. Rosewnnie {Queensland) Ltd. — Mr. Rosewarne, one of the three principal share- holders in this company, is practically the ]iroprietor of the Cumberland Packing Coy. G. S. Yvill and Coy. Ltd. — This company, as I have already mentioned, holds the majority of the shares in Yuill's Ltd., and both companies are associated witli the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy. Ltd. EVIDENCE RELATING TO RESTRICTIVE COMBINATIONS. In turning to consider the evidence relating to the existence of any restrictive combination or attemjit at monopoly in the export trade in meat it would be idle to ignore the fact that, altliough no nanies are mentioned in my commission, this inquiry had its origin in the belief that some of the American companies belonging to the group |)opularly known as the American Beef Trust were entering into the export trade in meat from Australia, and in the further belief that, having regard to the past history of the Beef Trust, its elimination of competition, its control of prices l)oth to the producer and to the consumer, and its vast resources, this incursion into the Australian trade constituted a menace to its healthy development and a danger to the community. 15 I propose therefore to consider first the evidence relating to the American 'Companies and afterwards to deal with that relating to other combinations. THE AMERICAN BEEF TRUST. In speaking of the American Beef Trust I refer, of course, throughout to the American companies which in the United States and elsewhere have been commonly- grouped together under that name. I have made no independent investigation of ray own into the facts of their past history, and their operations outside Australia. These matters have been the subject of inquiry both in the United States and in England, and for the purposes of this inquiry it seemed to me sufficient, and I have been content, to rely upon the information so acquired by others. Before referring to the operations in Australia of the companies concerned I propose to refer briefly to information obtained as to their past history, and to some of the conclusions arrived at concerning them and their operations, in other inquiries made elsewhere. In the first place, it is material to consider what companies have, from time to time, been grouped together and designated as the Beef Trust. In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, the Commissioner of Corporations (Mr. James Rudolph Garfield) made a report in 1905 upon various matters relating to the beef industry. In Chapter II., section 1, he says : — The investigation of the beef industry by the Bureau of Corporations has necessarily been mainly confined, so far as the packing-house business is concerned, to a few of the larger companies. Particular attention has been paid to the following concerns, three of which — Armour and Co., Swift and Co., Nelson Morris and Coy., with the eef Trust." Among the iirms wlio are said to etmsticnte this Trust in the United States are Armour and Coy., Swift and Coy., Morris and Coy., and tlie National Packing Coy. There are also two other firms of somethim; apiiroaching to the same iinitortance, and engaged in the same fi-aile, viz., the Cudahj- Coy., and Sehwarzschild and Sulzberger. Of thesi' firms the first four are represented in the United Ivingdom by English companies brought into existence in order to sell in this country the jiroducts of the American firms. 25. These four English firms are Armoui- and Coy., the Swiit Beef Coy., the Moi-ris Beef Coy., and the Hammond Beef Coy., the' last-named representing the National Packing Coy. The (ludahy Co. does not appear to have any such regular representation in this country, nor is it con- cerned to any extent, at least at present, in the sale of fresh beef, so that its proceedings are of no great moment to this inquiry. Sehwarzschild and Sulzberger are representetl by Archer and Sulzberger, an Enylish partnership firm. The English member of this latter firm, Mr. Archer. ai3)ieai-ed before us and claimed that !Messi-s. Sehwarzschild and Sulzberger were not membei'S of any Trust ill the United States, and that the English company has now no relations with the companies representing United States firms different from those which it has with other purveyors of meat on the English market. We were told by others that the opinion commonly held in the United States is that Messrs. Sehwarzschild and Sulzberger ceased to form part of the Beef Trust some five or six years ago, and have since then lieen acting independently. We have not received any evidence whicli induces us to doubt that Mr. Archer was justified in claiming that his company occupies an independent position in this country. '.'>?>. Owing to the meagre nature of the diri^ct evidence as to the proceedings of the American companies in the TTnited Kingdom, considerable importance must be attached to the position and action of the Beef Trust in the United States. That trust has been the subject of several official inquiries and some judicial proceedings : the most important of the inquiries were those by the United States Senate in 1890 and the Federal Bureau of Corporations in 190."). Copies of the lieports of the.se inquiries have been furnished to the Committoe, and they have also been assisted by an elaborate and able report prepared for the ])urposes of the present inquiry by the Secretary in Charge of Commercial Affairs at His Majesty's Emljassy in Washington (Mr. George Young). '.M. Broadly speaking, the outcome of these various investigations seems to be that in the United States a combinatit)n does exist, and has existed for two ilecades, in fact if not in form, between Armour and Coy., Swift and Coy., Morris and Coy., and the National Packing ('oy. ; that it is doal)t- fiil if Sehwarzschild and Sulzlierger now form part of the combination ; that the Cudahy Coy. probably does: that each of the four conijianies first mentioned controls a number of subordinate concerns ; that the combination has in its bands more than .">() per cent, of the whole beef trade of the United States ; that by reason of special transportation facilities, into the details of which i:. is unnecessary to enter here, the trust is in a position to com])ete on very favourable terms with local slaughterers and butchers ; that in the result there is little or no real comjietition, either for the purchase of cattle in Chicago or in the other great western stockyards, or in the sale of dressed beef ( /.r., carcasses of beef prepared and chilled) throughout a large part of the United States; and that, though it would be untrue (o assert that all the businesses of the various companies are C(widucted as a single midertaking, yet they are worked in such concert as to eliminate all serious ciunpetition, and to enable them to act in unison against any formidable trade rival. ',ib. The consideration of these facts makes it very dillicult to believe thai tlii' English companies representing these United States firms can be competitive to the full exteiit, ll is said, and with great truth, that it is almost incredible that Armour and Coy., Swift and Coy., and ^lorris and Coy., should be in combination in the U'nited States and in com]ielitioii in the [Jniteil Kingdom : and the case is even stronger with regard to the fourth English company — the Ilamniond Beef Company. That company, as already indicated, represents in this country the Amirican National Packing Coy. Now, the capital of the National Packing Coy. is, undoubtedly, subscribed by the other three packing firms just mentioned ; and the Board of Dii'ectors controlling the National Packing Coy. are all representatives of .\rmour, Swift, and Morris. It apjiears utterly improbable that the Hammond Beef ("ompany — repi-esenting a company which is its(lf entirely owned and controlled by three other American firms — should yet Ije in serious comjietition with the representatives of those firms in this conntrv. 17 Meat Imports to United Kingdom, 1908-1913. At the time that this Departmental Committee was making its investigations the importations of live-stock and of dead meat from the United States were already a diminishing quantity. The diminution in the importations of cattle on the hoof was no doubt attributable in a measure to the fact that it had been found to be more profitable to ship dead meat than live cattle, but this contraction was not counter- balanced by an expansion of the imports of refrigerated beef, and the Committee point out in their report that during the preceding four years the Argentine Republic had taken the place of the United States as the principal source of supply. In the succeeding years the United States not only did not recover its position as the principal supplier of beef to the United Kingdom, but by the end of 1913 it had practically ceased to export and had become an importer. In a report on the Beef Trust recently submitted to the Comptroller- General of Customs by Mr. Cherry, the Veterinary Inspector for the Commonwealth in England, he says that, according to the records of the United States, there was a decrease of 30 per cent, in the number of beef cattle in that country between 1907 and the end of 1913, while during the same period the population increased by 12,000,000. Tliis change in the situ- ation is well illustrated by the following table contained in a recent memorandum prepared by the Board of Trade concerning the operations of the " Beef Trust " in the Argentine Republic. It shows the imports of chilled and frozen beef into the United Kingdom from the principal countries of supplv for the years from 1908 to 1913. Imports into the United Kingdom of Chilled and Frozen Beef, 1908-1913. Total Imports. Imports frooi Principal Countries. Year. Argentine Republic. U.S.A. New Zealand. t Australia.! 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 ('wts. .5,61], 411* 6,078,198 6,958,564 7,351,768 7,992,044 9.200,884 Cwts. 3,570,974 4,208,155 4,898,869 6,111,018 6,594,897 7,171,875 Cwts. 1,446,994 856,216 477,147 174,350 6,111 1,462 Cwts. 347,872 454,:'.68 532,830 256,466 261,733. 244,168 Cwts. ll-',.583 409,397 878,469 708,388 892,334 1,347,464 Including a small quantity of fresh beef. t Frozen beef only. In this connexion the following extract from Weddel and Coy.'s Review of the Frozen Meat Trade for 1913 is also of interest : — The eventual disappearance of the United States of America as a source of supply to the British market has been anticipated for many years past ; but the actual cessation of exports has come more suddenly and dramatically than most people looked for. Whereas seven years ago (1907) the United States was the largest supplier of meat to this country (in the form of beef and live cattle), the weight of the import from that source being then equivalent to 231.599 tons, last year only about 800 quarters of beef and 10,093 head of cattle arrived, representing in all only ;),316 tons. At the end of 1913 the position is that the United States has become a free importer of Australian and South American meat, receiving shipments into both Western and Eastern ports, no less than 6,621 tons having been actually re-exported from England in order to meet the requii-ements of the New York and Boston markets. Dependence on Foreign Supplies. In considering this change in the situation as regards foreign supplies to the United Kingdom it is of interest to note that, though marked variations took place in the quantities drawn from the various sources, there does not appear to have been any substantial variation in the dependence of the United Kingdom on supplies from foreign sources. The figures set out in the report of the Departmental Com- mittee of the Board of Trade show that the percentage of home supplies to total supplies varied in the case of beef and veal from 633 per cent, in 1898-1899 to 608 per cent, in 1907-1908, and in the case of mutton and lamb from 61 2 per cent, in 1898-1899 to 55-9 per cent, in 1907-1908.. In 1913 this percentage was 6322 for beef and veal, and 52'58 for mutton and lamb, while home-grown beef, veal, mutton, 46^'.i C 18 and lamb taken together re])i"esented jiractically 60 ])er cent, of the total consumption.* In Weddel and Cnj^'s Annual Review for 1912 the projiortion of home-grown meat to the total consumption is put at 6239 per cent. In considering the figures bearing upon the proportion of home-grown to foreign meat consumed in the United Kingdom, the fact must not be lost sight of that the home-grown meat is not distributed uniformly through the different markets in the kingdom. At the time that the Departmental Committee made its report home-grown meat represented only about 20 per cent, of the total su])plies coming into the Smithfield market, and. whatever variations may have taken place in the meantime, the percentage of home-grown meat at Smithfield last year was only slightly in excess of that for 1909. This is illustrated by the following analysis of supplies to the Smithfield market for 1913 extracted from the annual re]wrt on the London Central Markets, and referred to by Mr. Cabburn in liis rei)ort ; — Analysis of Supplies, 1913. Source of Supply. I3eef and Veal. Katio per cent. .Mutton and Lamb. Ratio per cent. United Kingdom Australasia North Americat South America... Continent, &c Tons. 48,348 15,948 5,744 154,503 7,268 20-9 6-9 2-5 66-6 3-1 Tons. 29,695 83,516 25 18,306 7.072 21-4 60-3 ■02 13-2 5-1 Totals 231,811 100-0 13S.614 lOo-O t Includes the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America. This is an important circumstance because of the large influence which, notwith- standing any growth that there may be in direct shipments to provincial ports, is still exercised by Smithfield prices on prices throughout the country. • ' - United States Firms in South America. With two markets to cater for it is not likely that the American companies trading in the United States and the I'nited Kingdom were blind to the change which was taking place in the situation, or to the necessity of seeking for supplies of beef outside the United States. Dealing with this aspect of the matter, the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade say in their report : — 68. Until lately the supplies of the United States firms trading in the United Kingdom have been drawn solely from the United States. In saying this we put aside the allegation that they control part or the whole of the imports of live cattle from Canada, since the evidence on this point is too vague to afford any certain ground for a definite opinion. But recently, in the summer of 1907, Swift and Coy. bought out one of the largest Argentine companies, the La Plata, and still more recently another, the La Blanca, has been purchased. We are crediblj' informed that this latter purchase has been made by the National Packing Coy., and that the supplies sent to this country are consigned to the Hammond Beef Company, which divides them for sale lietween the Armour, Swift, and Morris Coys., and itself — a fact which throws further, though indirect, light upon their probable relations to each other in the United States and in this country. It seems certain also that other negotiations having for their object the acquisition of existing works in Argentina by L^nited States tirms are proceeding. There have also been incjuiries by representatives of United States tirms in Australia and New Zealand. d'.K It seems, therefore, to be within the limits of possibility, to put it no higher, that the United States tirms will acquire very considerable interests in Argentina, and perhaps elsewhere. If this should be the case, it is not improbable that the methods of combination which have been adopted so effectively in the United States might be extended, at any rate to Argentina. It is true that, so far as we can judge, the estancieros of that country are very much opposed to such an invasion from the United States, fearing that the prices for their cattle will be affected by the absence of competitive buying, it is also true that the estancic^ros are men of considerable wealth, and consequently able to protect themselves. On the other hand, the general course of the Argentine railways, converging as they do on iJuenos Ayres, and the consequent tendency towards the est'iblishmout of the works in i.r near that town, create a condition not unfavourable to some combination amongst the owners of sucli establishments. Such a combination has existed in a rudimentary form, as we have pointed out, in the past, and, under the vigorous and experienced guidance of the United Slates firms, it might be brought to a much higher state of development in the future. See the table at p. 23 post. 19 At tlie time that the Departmental Committee made its report in 1909 there were seven companies in the Argentine Republic engaged in the meat export trade, and notwithstanding the negotiations for the acquisition of other works spoken of in the report, the La Plata works and the La Blanca works continued to be the only works controlled by American companies until the year 1912. The National Packing Coy. voluntarily dissolved in that year, and its assets were distributed among "the constituent companies to which they belonged, in the proportion (it is said) of 46 per cent, to Swift and Coy., 40 per cent., to Armour and Coy., and 14 per cent, to Morris and Coy.* On the dissolution the ownership of the La Blanca works passed to Armour and Coy. and Morris and Coy. Freezing Works in South America. Within the last two or three years the American companies have increased their interests in Argentina and elsewhere in South America, and the following list of freezing establishments in Argentina, taken from the Annual Report on Argentina for the year 1913 by His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres, illustrates the present position. The list shows the establishments in order of their formation, their capital in 1908 and 1912, the names of their factories, and the locality of each factory whether in or outside Argentina. t Company. Capital, 1908. Capital, 1912. Name of Factory. Locality. $ Gold. $ Gold. 1. River Plate Fresli :\Ieat Co. 2,250,000 2,250,000 Campana ... Province of Buenos Ayres (1882). 2. Sansinena Meat Freezing Go. 3,000,000 4,500,000 ] . La Negra 11 » )i )? (1884). 2. Cuatreros 3. Frigorifico Uruguaya. 11 17 i» 11 Republic of Uruguay 3. Las Palmas Produce Co., Ltd. (1886). H. La Blanca Argentine Meat 2,500,000 2,500,000 Las Palmas... Province of Buenos Ayres 1,500,000 1,500,000 La Blanca ... 11 1^ 11 11 Freezing Co. (1902). $.i. La Plata Cold Storage Co., Ltd. 2,000,000 5,000,000 1. La Plata... 71 11 11 11 (1904). 2. Montevideo Republic of Uruguay C). Smithfield and Argentine Meat 1,000,000 1,250,000 Zarate Province of Buenos Ayres Co., Ltd. (1904). §7. Frigorifico Argentine (190.5) 1,250,000 2,000,000 Argentine ... 11 11 11 11 (now purchased by Messrs. Sulzberger and Sons). §8. New Patagonian !Meat Preserv- — 2,008,607 I.Rio Galle- Patagonia ing and Cold Storage Co., Ltd. gos. (part of the La Plata Cold 2. San JnVnn Argentina Storage Co.). § Denotes North American companies. Of the foregoing companies, the La Plata Coy. and the New Patagonia Meat Preserving Coy. are controlled by Swift and Coy. ; the La Blanca Coy. by Morris and Coy., and Armour and Coy. ; and the Frigorifico Argentino by Messrs. Sulzberger and Sons. This last-named firm is popularly supposed to be in opposition to the Beef Trust. Armour and Coy. are building a factory adjacent to Swift and Coy.'s factory at the port of Buenos Ayres, and it is said that the La Blanca works will be acquired entirely by Morris and Coy.| If this should take place, each of the three large American companies popularly identified at the present day with the Beef Trust will ]iossess its own works in Argentina. In the memorandum recently prepared by the Board of Trade, to which I have already referred, it is stated that the only freezing establishment which existed in Uruguay up till 1912 was the Frigorifico Uruguayo, a branch of the Sansinena Co}., of Buenos Ayres, but that after Swift and Coy. opened the Frigorifico de Montevideo in that year the Frigorifico Uruguayo suspended operations. * See Mr. Cherry's report, and a special article on the River Plate Meat Companies in the London Times of 17th June, 1913. My information as to the proportions is derived from that ai-ticle. + A very useful list of all refrigerating works employed in the frozen and chilled meat export trade, in , South America, giving the approximate dailj^ freezing and storage capacity, will be found in the issue of The Pastoral Revieiv for 15th August, 1914. X See the article in The Times previously referred to. 4689 C 2 20 The River Plate Fresh Meat Coy. and the Las Pahiias Produce Coy. (the Argentine brani'li of IVIessi's. James Nelson and Sons. Ltd.) have recently amalga- mated under the name of " The British and Argentine Meat Cov. Ltd." Concerted Action. In 1911 the seven freezing companies carrying on business in Argentina, feeling the pressure of competition, came to an agreement amongst themselves in respect of the quantities to be exported, but this i^roved to be of short duration. The story of its brief career, its termination, and the results that followed are told in the Board of Trade's Memorandum in the following terms : — Towards the end of 1911, however, an agreement was entered into by all the firms shipping meat fi'om Argentina to the United Kingdom, whereby the proportions to be shipped by the United States firms and firms of other nationalities, respectively, were fixed. This agreement, which appears to have resulted in more remunerative business for the J5ritish and Argentine firms concerned, continued in force until April, 1913, bnt was then denounced by the United States companies, and unrestricted competition again commenced. It was stated in the Argentine press that the agreement broke down because the La Blanca and La Plata companies had recently inci'eased considerably the capacity of their works and did not desire to place further restriction on their out]iiu, and it was ftlso alleged that the probability that the United States market would soon be opened to the duty free importation of meat made it imperative for the United States firms to strengthen their hold on the Argentine supplies as much as possible. The result of the renewal of unrestricted competition was that in May, 1913, as compared with prices and stocks for the corresponding period of 1912, prices for cattle in Argentina had increased by about 50 per cent., and f.o.b. prices for meat at River Plate by roughly 1(/ per lb.; on the other hand, stock of Argentine meat available in the United Kingdom had increased by over 7.') per cent., and prices at Smithfield liad declined by about Id. per lb. In view of the protests of the Argentine and British companies against the alleged unfair competition of the. United States companies, the Ai-gentine Government considered the possibility ■of steps to prevent the eventual success of the latter in obtaining control of the Argentine beef supply. Opinion in Argentine was, however, divided as to the advisability or practicability of intervention. It was alleged that any restriction by the Argentine (Tovernment of the output of the companies would be illegal without special legislation, and, further, Argentine stock-breeders were opposed to any action which would diminish the competition in the Argentine cattle market iind lower the prices paid for cattle. For these reasons, and also because they were not satisfied that the existence of a meat trust in Argentina had been definitely proved, the Argentine Government eventually decided to take no action in the matter. At present it would appear that the British and Argentine companies are more prosperous than recently seemed probable. His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres states, in a desj)atch dated 11th December last, that since the opening of the United States market to Argentine meat he has received no complaint from the British companies, and that he has been informed by them that they •" now have some hopes of weathering the storm." The following comparative statements of shipments and prices at the end of September, 1912, while the agreement was still in force, and at the end of September, 1913, after it had come to an end, taken from the Annual Report on Argentina for 1913 by His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres, are interesting : — Argentine Shipments of Chilled Beef. Prices in the United Kingdom. Price of Cattle in I'.uenos Ayres. January to January to ■September, r.tI2. September, 1913. September, 1912. September, 1913. September, 1912. September, 1913 Quarters. ],764,.580 Quarters. 2,209,9X0 :; i; 3 2 Dollars. 12t> Dollars. 1G6 Chilled Quarters. .) Sept tnuary to January to ember, 1912. September, 1913, Shipment Ity American com|)anies Shipment by all other companies 1,()20,83S 743,742 1,47.'>,3.59 734,621 Tota Is ],761,5SO 2,209,980 551 The buying war, as it is called in Weddel and Coy.'s Annual Review for 1913, which broke out on the cessation of the working agreement, and which led to so large an increase in the price of live-stock, while at the same time selling values at Smith- field declined, has, according to what Mr. Cherry heard before leaving England, come to an end and a fresh agreement has been entered into. Mr. Nevanas, who left England last April, said that there was a meeting before he left and that it was stated that some arrangement had been made again to restrict the output. He added that he thought it must have taken effect, because prices had been such as to show a margin of ]irofit. Fears .\s to United States Firms. In May, 1913, so much alarm was felt by other companies at the inroads of the American freezing establishments into the meat industry in Argentina that the Argentine Government was approached in the matter, and the British Minister at Buenos x\yres informed that Government that the British Government would watch with sympathetic concern any action which might be taken for the purpose of pre- venting the establishment of a monopoly in the meat export trade. A special Committee of Congress was appointed to study and report on A-arious proposals put forward, and that Committee presented three Bills to Congress. The first aimed at preventing the establishment of any harmful trust in the Republic, the second provided for an immediate census of all animals in the country, and the third ])rovided for an examination into the details of the home meat trade. Appa- rently, however, for the reasons mentioned in the recent memorandum of the Board of Trade, in a passage which I have already quoted,* the Argentine Government eventually decided to take no action in the matter. The ojjinion expressed in the memorandum that, at the time of its preparation, the British and Argentine companies were more prosperous than had been thought probable is supported by a statement in the British Minister's report for 1913. Speaking of the representa- tions made by the Anglo-Argentine companies, after the termination of the working agreement of 1911, to the effect that the existing condition of affairs was exposing them to severe loss, he says : — At the end of the year it was stated, on good authority tliat the La Plata (^old Storage Coy., one of the American establishments, will pay a dividend of between 6 and 7 per cent, for lOl)'). Should this prove to be the case, the presumption will be that the apprehensions of the Anglo-Argentine companies were not Justified. It may be, as Mr. Cherry and Mr. Nevanas say, that the Anglo- Argentine and the North American companies are now working amicably together again in South America, but the financial resources of the latter group, and the fact that last year they exported more than half of the total output, demonstrate their powers of effective combination, if they are minded to act in concert and to suppress compe- tition. American Firms at Smithfield. In dealing with the holdings of the American companies in Smithfield markets and with allegations that they had secured a very large proportion of the shops either in their own names or in those of their nominees, the Departmental Com- mittee of the Board of Trade reported as follows in 1909 : — 55. The facts appear to lie that in the Central Markets there are 210 firms, comprising oiO tenants, occupying 341 shops. The Swift Beef Coy. have six shops, Armour and Coy. have four shops, the Morris Beef Coy. have three shops, Archer and Sulzberger have three shop.s, and the Hammond Beef Coy. have three shops in their own name, and one which, under the name of H. S. Scott, the secretary to the company, is professedly carried on as an independent concern. Beyond these, the business ot J. W. Curry & Coy., Ltd., who have five shops, is carried on at least in very close business connexion with one or other of the American companies. This, however, appears to be an exceptional case, and beyond it the charge that the American companies have control of stalls held in the names of other firms or individuals appears to rest upon no better foundation than market gossip. No doubt there are many stall-holders who would be very averse from quarrelling Avith the American companies, since they are dependent upon them for a very large part of their supplies of beef. In this sense the American companies may be said to have some control o\er them, but apart from this we are not satisfied that the allegations as to their real (as distinct fi-om admitted) holdings in the market are well founded. See p. iO (nifc. 22 The HainTriond Beef Coy. was the representative in England of the National Packing Coy. and on the dissolution of the latter its holdings no doubt i)assed to one or more of its constituent companies. The witnesses who gave evidence before me were unable to testify as to the present holdings of the American companies, but useful information in this respect is contained in Mr. Cabburn's report to the High Commissioner, and. as it is based upon a return pi'epared by the Central Markets Committee of the Corporation of the City of London showing the holdings as on 27th January last, its accuracy may be relied upon.* The American companies have increased their holdings in recent years. In 1909 the Swift Reef Coy., Armour and Coy., the Morris Beef Coy., and the Ham- mond Beef Coy. held between them .seventeen shops in all, including that held under the name of Scott. In January last the Swift Beef Coy., Armour and Coy., and the Morris Beef Coy. held 27 shops, an increase of ten. The holdings of J. W. Curry and Coy. Ltd. have been increased from five to six, but I cannot, of course, say whether that conijiany still has any business connexion with any of the American companies. Mr. Cabburn says — though the fact does not appear in the return — that Schwarzschild and Sulzberger hold two shops. If so, and if that firm is identical with Archer and Sulzberger, there has been a reduction of one. " Some Australi.an Holdings .4t Smithfield. A comparison of the holdings of the American companies at Smithfield with those of some of the firms engaged in the Australian export trade is interesting. Borthwick and Sons Ltd. have nine shops; Fletcher and Coy. Ltd. have seven shops; and the Colonial Consignment and Distributing Coy. have four shops. These three firms, therefore, hold twenty shops between them. Mr. Cabburn after stating the holdings of the American companies adds, " Alto- gether there are 344 stalls, so that 27 Trust stalls does not appear an unduly high proportion. But, as stated, the Trust indirectly controls other firms, firms indeed which are assumed to be essentialh' British. Thus, the influence of the Trust firms cannot be gauged by their actual holdings, although the view is gaining ground that a limit should be placed upon the number of stalls which should he allocated to Trust firms." Influence of American Firms on Prices. He says fuither that " to-day the Beef Trust of America fixes the price at which meat shall be sold at all the markets of the LTnited Kingdom." No doubt the American firms exercise an influence on the market, and it may be that they aim at an increase of tliat influence, but, in the absence of further evidence than is con- tained in Mr. Cabburn's report, a statement of so sweeping a character should. I think, be received with caution. Mr. Nevanas says that ever since the American firms came into England their policy has been to break down the influence of the Smithfield market, and to establish selling organizations in every town of any conse- quence. He does not consider that they fix the prices in the London market, but he thinks that they manipulate them to some extent. Mr. Walker says tliat the opinion of his managers in England is that the x\merican companies do not fix the price of meat, and that they are not in touch regarding prices in the same way as thev were in the days of chilled meat from the United States. Sources of Supply in ITnited Kingidom for 1913. At this stage the following table, analyzing and comparing the various sources of supply of beef, mutton, and lamb consumed in the T'I'nited Kingdom in 1913, will be found of interest. It is taken from a table appearing in Weddel and Coy.'s Annual Review for 1913, with the addition that the percentages for beef, and for inutton and lamb, have been worked out separately. " The return appears to have been prepared coufulentially for the use of members of the Committee, but it was appended to the Committee's report to the Corporation, from which Mr. Cabburn quotes as though the contents were public property. 23 Supplies of Beef, Mutton and Lamb fri^m the Vauious Sources and Available for Consumption in the United Kingdom in 1913. Beef. Mutton and Lamb. Beef. Mutton and Lamb. Tons. Percentage of Total Frozen and Chilled Imports. Percentage of Total Consump- tion in U.K. Tons. Percentage of Total Frozen Imports. Percentage of Total Consump- tion in U.K. Tons. Percentage of Total Importa- tion. Percentage of Total Consump- tion in U.K. Frozen — Australia New Zealand South America ... 67,373 12,208 117,662 14-65 2-65 25-58 5-32 0-97 9-31 83,293 110,026 67,-/98 260,617 31-96 42-22 25-82 14-79 19-55 11-96 1.50,666 122,234 l.S4,U60 20 -.59 16-70 25-27 8-25 6-69 10-12 Total Frozen 197,243 262,400 401 42-88 15-61 46-30 457,860 262,801 62-56 35 - 91 25-06 Chilled- South America U.S. and Canada .>7-04 0-08 ■20-66 0-03 Total Chilled 262,801 57-12 20-69 1. 14-38 Total Frozen and Chilled 460,044 4,860 100-00 36-30 0-48 260.617 6,315 100-00 46-30 1-12 720,661 11,175 98 47 1-.53 39-44 Foreign Live Stock and Fresh. Killed 0-61 Total Importations into U.K. ... 464,904 799,300 36-78 266,932 47-42 52-58 731,836 1,095,300 100-00 40-05 Home gro-wn 63-22 296,000 562,932 .59-95 Total Consumption in U.K. 1,264.204 100-00 lOO-OO! 1,827,136 100-00 Several facts of material importance emerge from a consideration of these figures. '. Importance of South American Supplies. It will be noted that 40 per cent, of the meat consumed in the United Kingdom came from abroad, and that South America supplied 61 18 per cent.* of the imports, and 2450 per cent.* of the total quantity consumed. Australia's contribution was 2059 per cent, of the imports, and 825 per cent, of the consumption. Taking mutton and lamb separately from beef, South America supplied 2582 per cent, of the imports and 11'96 per cent, of the total consumption, while Australia contributed 31 '96 per cent, of the imports and 14'79 per cent, of the consumption. The importations under this head from South America decreased below those of 1912 by 18,478 tons. In respect of beef South America supplied 8262 per cent, of the frozen and chilled beef imported into the United Kingdom, and 2997 per cent.t of the total consumption. Australia's contribution, consisting of frozen beef only, was 14'65 per cent, of the imports and 5'32 per cent, of the consumption. These figures, and these comparisons, illustrate forcibly the important position occupied by South America as a source of supply of imported meat to the United Kingdom, and the figures which follow, and which again are taken from Weddel and Goy.'s Annual Reviews for 1912 and 1913, demonstrate the power which the North American companies, with freezing establishments in South America, possess of dominating the markets in the United Kingdom, if they combine for that purpose. In 1912 the total quantity of beef, mutton, and lamb, shipped from the La Plata and the La Blanca works was 163,973 tons or 383 per cent, of the South American out- put. Of this amount 31.324 tons, or 191 per cent, of the South American output, represented mutton and lamb, and 132,649 tons, or 39 per cent., of the output, represented beef. I am unable to give any figures as to the shipments of mutton and laml) from these two works in 1913, but the shipments of beef for that year amounted to 192,415 tons, or 506 per cent, of the total South American output, an increase of 11 per cent, over the previous year's shipments. It is an interesting * These percenta,i to be paid for at the rate of 25s. 100 lbs. di'cs.sed weight, and " B " grade bullocks ai'o to be sold by the com- pany as agent for Mr. Kidman on a commission of 5 per cent. Mr. Kidman is entitled to draw £7 10s. on account of each " B " grade carcass on presentation of the certificate to the bank, and the balance, whichever way it may be, is adjusted when account sales are rendered. The meat is all branded " Ariiiour and Cov." at the 29 Department, and is all shipped to London. Up to 30th June last 2,227 head of cattle had been supplied under the contract, of which 1,436 were certified as " A " grade and 791 as " B " grade. Mr. Kidman says that cattle were cheap at the time of the contract, and that the price paid under it was better than the market price at the time. The South Australian Government Produce Department was established in 1895 for the purpose of opening up and developing oversea markets for the products of the State not then being shipped. It takes delivery of live-stock at its works at Port Adelaide, slaughters them, and does all the work required to put the meat on board ship in a frozen state, charging for its services according to the rates in its published scale of charges. It slaughters for any one tendering stock, and, in making arrange- ments with Mr. Hodgkinson, he was treated on exactly the same footing as any other client would have been. In order that sufficient space might be reserved for other clients, the slaughterings on his account were limited to 100 a week. Mr. Sharpe thinks that the action of the Government in treating cattle for what he calls a speculator is open to criticism. That is a matter of policy for the Government to consider, but in view of the interest which has apparently been taken in the trans- action I think it right to say that Mr. Hodgkinson received no exceptional treat- ment of any kind, but was dealt with in exactly the same way as any other client, whether grower or speculator, would have been. The Morris Beef Coy. Mr. Farris, the representative of Morris and Coy., has been in Australia quite recently. He appears to have displayed some desire to purchase a meat works, and inquiries were made on his behalf by Mr. Parkes, a land agent at Townsville, in respect of the Bowen works, the Gladstone meat works, the Central Queensland Coy.'s meat Avorks, and the Torrens Creek meat works. The Torrens Creek works were placed under offer to him for a period, but he decided that they would not suit him. Before leaving he arranged that Mr. Parkes should inform him if any meat works came into the market. Purchase of L.^nd. In addition to these inquiries concerning meat works he inspected various properties on the Brisbane River in company with Mr. W. F. Cameron, of the firm of Cameron Brothers, and eventually, through the agency of that firm, secured an option of purchase over a block of land, about 420 acres in area, belonging to Mr. Uhlmann. He told Mr. Kerr that, if his company purchased, it would probably erect works with a capacity of 300 head a day. The land adjoins the works of Borthwick and Coy., and is in close proximity to those of Baynes Brothers and the Australian Meat Export Coy. The option extended to about the middle of last September, and in the meantime Mr. Farris, though he had left Australia, remained in communication with Cameron Brothers in connexion with various matters relat- ing to the clearing of the land and its profitable use. Since I left Brisbane I have been informed by Cameron Brothers that the property has been sold to the Morris Beef Coy. Ltd., of London. It may be assumed, therefore, that this company intends to establish its own works, and to engage in the export trade in meat from Australia. This is its only manifestation of activity in that direction up to the present time, though, like other firms, it has made purchases of the Australian product through distributing agencies abroad. The Cud.4hy Packing Coy. Within the last year or so shipments of frozen meat have been made to the Cudahy Packing Coy. in the United States, in addition to large shipments of pre- served meat. Negotiations are in progress for the appointment of Messrs. Robert Little and Coy. as its agents in Australia, and through their agency it will probably continue to make purchases for its trade in the United States. There is no other evidence of activity on its part in Australia. General Rumours. In the course of my inquiries I found that various rumours were or had been m circulation respecting alleged purchases by the American companies of pastoral 30 properties, alleged purchases of unborn stock, antl the alleged acquisition of an option over stock for future delivery at maturity by the payment of a cash deposit. Many witnesses were able to tell me of the rumours and nearly all scouted them as ridiculous, but I was unable to trace any of them to their source, except that relating to the purchase of unborn stock, which, owing to information supplied to me by Mr. Sharpe. I was able to investigate, and Avhich, as I shall show pi'esently, was a transaction entiiely between pastoralists. No Foundation for Them. In view of the jn-evalence of the rumours, and in order that I might in some way, if I could, get upon the track of their origin, I caused a circular to be sent to all stock and station agents — other than those firms from the members of which I received oral testimony —in the four exporting States, asking for replies to the following specific questions ; — 1. Has your firm, or any member of it, acted as agent in connexion with the sale of any live- stock to any oi* the following companies or to any representative of any such companies, i.e.. Swift and Coy., Armour and Coy., Morris and Coy., Cudahy and Coy. (all of the United States), or the Australian Meat Export Coy., Ltd., of Queensland ^ 2. If so, please give particulars as to date, nature of transaction, and price paid. ."]. Were the i^rices paid on such sales, if any, in excess of rnliiag rates at the time, or were the tran.sactions in any other respect different from ordinary transactions ? 4. Has your firm, or any member of it, acted as agent on behalf of any of the above-mentioned companies, or on Ijehalf of any other company, firm, or person engaged in the meat export trade, in connexion with negotiations for contracts — (rt) For the purchase of unborn stock. {h) For the purpose of securing an option over stock for future delivery at maturity by the payment of a cash deposit of £1 (or some other sum) per head ? .0. If so, please give particulars of any such transaction. fi. Has your firm, or any member of it, acted as agent in connexion with the sale of any pastoral property to any of the companies mentioned in the first question or to any representatives ot any such companies .^ 7. If so. please give particulars, stating whether the transactions were in any respect different from ordinary transactions on the sale of pastoral properties. In reply I received information as to sales of live-stock to the Australian Meat Exjiort Coy., but in all other respects the inquiries Avere answered in the negative. I am satisfied that none of the companies referred to — including, in the case of the American companies, their associate or subsidiary companies in England — have purchased any pastoral ])roperty in Australia, or have entered into any negotiations in respect of live-stock of the character of those mentioned in the above questions. The information received in respect of purchases by the Australian Meat Export Coy. shows that in no case were the prices paid in excess of ruling rates, or was the transaction in any respect different from ordinary transactions. PURCHA.SE OF UnbORN StOCK BY BeaK PaSTORAI. CoY. The rumours as to the purchase of unborn stock had their origin, I have no doubt, in the following facts. In June, 1913, the Rockharajiton branch of the Australian Estates and Mortgage Coy., acting on behalf of the 15eak I'astoral Coy., sent out a circular in the following terms to a number of pastoralists : — We have a buyer prepared to purchase now No. 3 steers for delivery between .lune and December next year at £3 per head, and so on for two or three years ahead. If you will, therefore, give us by return mail a firm offer of the whole drdp of your No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 steers for delivery between June and December following the year they are calved, we expect to be able to do Ijusiness for you without our buyer even inspecting. The numbers 3. 4. 5, and 6 refer to the years 1913, 1914, 1915. and 1916, and the offer was to take the whole of the calves calved in each year, and to |)ay for them at the rate of £3 a head on delivery between June and December in tlie following year. The registered office of the Beak Pastoral Coy. is in Rockhampton. There are 4,000 shares in the company, of whicli 3,900 arc held by Mr. Beak and ten are held by each of his nine children and by Mr. Bromley, the secretary 'of the conijjany. No shares or interests are lield by any meat conipany. Mr. Bromley, who is a stock and station agent, says that before tlie circular in question was issued he effected a sale of a similar cliaracter to the company; and before authorizing the is.sue of the circular the company iiuist presumably have been satisfied that from the point of view of the pastoralis't a specidation in future values of that character was worth 31 entering into. The circular was sent to about 100 pastoralists, and Mr. Caswell, the manager in Rockhampton of the Australian Estates and ^lortgage Coy., and Mr. Bromley both say that though the speculation might appeal to a pastoralist .it would not suit a meat works. Sims, Cooper and Coy. Another matter which may be conveniently dealt with at this stage is the sug- gestion that has apparently been made in some quarters that the firm of Sims, Cooper and Coy. is either financed by, or is associated in some way with, the American Beef Trust, or Swift and Coy. This partnership firm — the members of which are Mr. Ai'thur Sims and Mr. Arthur Ernest Cooper — has been engaged in the frozen meat trade since 1905. Beginning in a small way in Australia, it now exports from Australia and from New Zealand, and during the last two or three years its output in Australia has increased very largely. It buys in three States, i.e., New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, but slaughters only in two, i.e., South Australia and Victoria. In South Australia its slaughtering is done by the Government Produce Depart- ment. In Victoria it possessed no works of its own until recently, but in June of last year it acquired working rights over the Corio Freezing Works from the Gee- long Harbor Trust for a period of two years, and these rights have since been extended for a further period of seven years. For these rights payment is made at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum on tlie capital value of the works, Avhich is estimated at £92,000. I do not think that I am saying anything unjust or unwarranted in suggesting that, by some at least of the exporting firms, the introduction into the trade of a new and perhaps a formidable competitor has not been hailed w4th any marked degree of cordiality. Mr. A. E. Cooper is in England and will not return to Australia for three years. At the time that I was taking evidence in Melbourne Mr. Sims was in New Zealand. Mr. H.L. Cooper, w^ho was in charge of the business during his absence, gave evi- dence denying the existence of any connexion between the firm and any American firm, but, as it appeared to me that he was not as fully informed in all res])ects as the members of the partnership would be, I stated that if Mr. Sims cared to forward to me a statutory declaration bearing on the matter, and giving information as to the constitution of the London Produce Coy. — the selling agents m London of the firm — I would consider it. This course was adopted, and I received from Mr. Sims a statutory declaration in the terms of Appendix E. I also received at a later stage a complete list of all sales of frozen meat by the London Produce Coy. for the years 1911, 1912, 1913, certified to as accurate by Messrs. F. W. Smith, Riches and Coy., a firm of chartered accountants. Later on Mr. Sims returned to Melbourne, and at my request he came to Sydney and gave evidence. No Evidence of Identification w^th any American Firm. I have to report that no evidence has been adduced before me to justify the suggestion that the firm is financed by, or in any way bound to, any American company. Mr. Sims' own words to me were, " We are absolutely free and are inde- pendent of any one, wdiether in England or America, or in fact any place to-day." In his statutory declaration he says, " My firm has no connexion either direct or indirect with any other firm whatsoever, English or American." Mrs. Sims and Mrs. Cooper are tw'o of the four co-owners of or shareholders in the London Produce Coy., and probably there is a very close association between the two firms. The fact that, as Mr. Sims says, a great proportion of the output of his firm has gone to Swift and Coy. may have led to a misconstruction of the business relations between the two firms, and may have led to an inference being drawn of a closer relationship than in fact exists, Ijut there is nothing before me in the shape of evidence to detract from the weight to be given to Mr. Sims' denials of any connexion. Swift and Coy. is undoubtedly a large buyer of the product imported into England by Sims, Cooper and Coy., but it is not the onlv large buver. In saying that a great proportion went to that company Mr. Sims was no doubt referring to the year 1913, in which Swift and Coy.'s purchases increased very largely, but, unless it is to be assumed that the position of the London Produce 32 Coy. is that of a mere distributor for Swift and Coy. — an assumption for which nothing adduced before me affords any justification — the suggestion that the whole of Sims, Cooper and Coy.'s output goes to Swift and Coy. is unfounded. Mr. Cherry says that he has never heard any rumours to the effect that the firm is connected Avith the Swift Beef Coy. Mr. Hill, the chairman of the Geelong Harbor Trust, says that the rumours got as far as Parliament in Victoria and that as the Harbor Trust is (as he described it) a semi-Government body it had to assure Parliament — before granting rights over its works — that the firm was not in league with any American Trust. Because of the rumours provision was made in the agreement for forfeiture of the rights con- ferred in the event of the firm entering into any understanding or ai-rangement of the character of those mentioned in the agreement. The prohibitory clause is in the following terms : — 20. The Contractor shall not combine, whether as principal or agent, or conspire, or collude, or agree, or enter directly or indirectly, orally, or by writing-, into anj- understanding or arrangement with any other person, partnership, corporation, or trust or association or combination of persons, partnerships, corporations, or trusts carrj'ing on or intending to carry on business in the State of Victoria in commodities of a kind treated or produced at the works of the Commissioners, or purchasing in the markets of the Commonwealth of Australia live stock, butter, eggs, or fruit for treatment at the works oi the Commissioners or at works similar thereto, with the intention or ultimate object of, or the natural effect of which will operate in, limiting or reducing market values of such commodities, including such live-stock, butter, eggs, or fruit, within the Commonwealth or any part thereof, or bj- any means whatever preventing competition, either public or private, therefor, or the Contractor or any other body or person acquiring a monopoly, whetlier complete or partial, in the whole or any part of the Commonwealth, in the pui'chasing, marketing, or distribution of, or in the treatment for preservation or for export, or in the export of, such commodities. Upon any question or difference of opinion arising regarding the observance of this condition, the onus of proof shall rest upon the Contractors. As will be seen, it relates only to agreements or understandings with firms carry- ing on or intending to carry on business in the State of Victoria, and as a matter of construction it does not appear that a sale of the output from the works to a firm carrying on business in the United Kingdom or the United States of America would come within the scope of its provisions. The evidence which was given to the effect that the possession of superior financial resources was indicated by the fact that Sims, Cooper and Coy. paid higher prices at times for live-stock than their competitors could afford to pay, or than prices on the London market would justify, does not call for serious consideration. The acquisition of their own slaughtering and freezing establishment has led to a vevy large increase in their buying, and it may be, as Mr. H. L. Cooper says, that the freezing profit which they are able to make enables them to pay slightty higher prices than in other seasons. In addition, it happens occasionally to all firms that, in order to fulfil contracts, they have to buy at prices higher than is warranted by market rates at the time. But however this may be, Mr. Angliss, who is not, I think, disposed unduly to champion the interests of Sims, Cooper and Coy., says that their buying does not give rise to any suggestion that they are assisted by any one else, and that per pound their prices do not exceed on the whole the prices ]iaid by other freezing firms. Rumour .\s to Subscription to Political Funds. Another rumour, which may conveniently be disposed of at this stage in order to clear the air a little further, is that which charges the Australian Meat Export Coy. with having made a substantial contribution to the funds of a political organi- zation in Queensland. There is no truth in this. The unsubstantial foundation on whicli it rests is the fact that certain contributions to party funds, raised by sympathizers in New South Wales and in Queensland, happened to pass through the hands of Messrs. Thynne and Macartney, who are the solicitors for the company. No part of these contributions came, either directlj' or indirectly, from the Australian Meat Export Coy. or, as far as is known, from any other meat company. The evidence of Mr. Denham, the Premier of Queensland, of Mr. Macartney, and of Mr. Malkow conclusively dispi'oves the rumour. No Evidence of Combination in Australia. In the transactions of the American companies — including the Australian Meat Export Coy. — in Australia up to the present time there is no evidence of anything in 33 the. shape of concerted action. Whatever suggestion of a common design may be conveyed by their ])ractically contemporaneous appearance on the scene, and what- ever combination may be contemplated or may be developed in the future, if they become firmly established here in a large way of business, the nature and extent of their operation.s up to the present time negative the suggestion that in their actual buying in Australia they have been acting in combination. It is manifest, however, that their advent into the export trade on a large scale heralds an era of strenuous competition for exporters and high prices for producers, and, like the estancieros of South America, the pastoralists of Australia have not been slow to realize the immediate advantage to themselves which is likely to follow from this addition to the number of the buyers. The evidence given before me indicates the existence of a belief that sellers have not been generously dealt with in the past, and there appears to be a very prevalent opinion among pastoralists that there has lieen a certain amount of combination between exporters for the purpose of fixing the prices to be paid by buyers. It is not surprising, therefore, that many pastoralists watch the introduction of the American firms into the trade with equanimity. Exporters do not regard the ]U'ospect'with similar complacency. They antici- pate an inadequate supply of live-stock to meet the increased demand, and they fear the long purses and the elaborate organization of the American companies. Effect of Entr.\nce of American Firms into Australian Trade. The increased competition which will inevitably follow from the introduction of the American companies into the slaughtering and freezing business in Australia must lead to increased efficiency and increased economy in working methods, and, though this may mean the elimination of the weaker and less progressive competitors, any stimulus of this character must be beneficial in the development of the trade. If the advent of the American companies meant nothing more than this, their appearance would probably be dreaded by no one except their competitors, but an extension of their activities to the Australian field is feared by others because of a belief that their past history elsewhere teaches that their appearance on the scene, whatever the immediate result may be, will lead in the end to the supjiression of competition, with a reduction in price to the producer and an increase to the con- ; sumer. Viewed from this asjiect, their incursion into Australia is one of serious _ concern to the whole community,- but their operations have not yet been developed to a sufficient extent to afford material for anything more than a speculative opinion as to the rvrobability of concerted action being taken for the purpose of fixing prices or controlling supplies in the Australian market. Adv.antage of Control over Australian Supplies. The suppression of competition, and the control over supplies, is not only a matter of seriou.s concern to Australia, but it is also a matter of Imperial concern. it is improbable that the American companies have any intention of engaging in the distributing trade in Australia. Their object in coming here is to obtain supplies ■for their trade in the United Kingdom and in the United States, and, assuming ■the existence of a desire to exercise a determining influence on prices in the markets of the United Kingdom, the advantage of a control over Australian supplies is obvious. ; ' At the time that the Depa^rtmental Committee of the Board of Trade made its report in 1909, the American firms were not concerned in the supply of mutton to the United Kingdom, but the Committee came to the conclusion that they controlled the whole of the supply of chilled beef from the United States— which amounted to one-quarter of the imports of chilled and frozen beef in 1908— and in addition owned a large proportion of the cattle imported on the hoof, and were said, apparently with truth, as the Committee thought, to have some control over the whole or nearly the whole of it. The Committee did not think that they attempted directly to control p'rices in Smithfield. but thought that they arranged with one another to some extent as to the amount of supplies which each should place upon that market so as to prevent the placing upon it of such quantities as would undulv depress the price of beef. 4689 ,, 34 Since then, as has been pointed out, the United States has ceased to be an exporter to the United Kingdom either of cattle on the hoof or of refrigerated beef, and the foreign supplies consist of refrigerated meat from South America and from Australia. The American companies did not at first make such rapid progress in South America as the Departmental Committee anticipated, but, as previously stated, by ini3 the footing acquired was such that they exported rather more than one-half of the total export from South America, and they are enlarging their interests in that country. If to their increasing interests in that country there are added very considerable interests in Australia, their ability, if acting in combination, to exercise a determining influence upon prices in the English market will become a matter of very serious concern. If facilities and op]iortunities for effective com- I)ination exist it is not improbable that they may be made use of. In his recent report Mr. Cherry says that in the ITnited States it is fairly evident thnt the repre- sentatives of Armour and Coy., Swift and Cov., find Morris and Coy. have at least a mutual understanding as to prices. Mr. Cabburn is of opinion that the American companies already fix the price of meat in all the markets of the United King- dom, and Mr. Nevanas, without going so far as this, thinks that they manipulate the London market to some extent ; but, whatever the extent ,>f their existing influence mav l"»e, an increase of control over foreign supplies must increase their power of fixing prices, if thev combine for that purpose. If this takes place the situation so created will be one of srrave concern to the ITnited Kingdom and to Australia, and concerted action of some kind mav be necessary to cope effectually with it. Shipping Eates. No preferential treatment of any kind exists in respect of shipiiing rates, and there is nothing in the shape of rebates. The shipping companies have an under- standing among themselves as to the rates to be charged — which appears to be strictly observed in practice — and all comers are treated alike. No complaint was made by exporters that the rates charged were unduly burdensome. Imt they have been raised since the war began. No useful purpose would be served by embarking upon a speculative inquiry whether the conditions which exist in Australia are such as to constitute an effective obstacle in the way of an attempted monopoly of the export trade. For such an •attempt to be successful it would be necessary that control should be obtained over the refrigerating space in steamers. The danger of a combination aiming at control is, however, so manifest that every stage in the development of the interests of the American companies in the Australian export trade should be closely watched for evidence of the exhibition in action of a common interest and a common design. Proposed Legislation in Argentina. The form which legislation should take for the purpose of ])reventing the establishment of detrimental combinations is a matter which falls outside the scope of my inquiry. The Bill ]iresented to the Chamber of Deputies in the Argentine Republic forbade all contracts or combinations of any kind regarding commerce or transport the object of which was (1) to produce artificial alterations in the prices of articles of consumption or prime necessity to the prejudice of the consumer, or (2) to affect the normal course of commerce between the different jnovinces and between the Republic and foreign nations in food products and articles of prime necessity. Authority was conferred upon the executive to make agreements with foreign Governments having for their object the prevention of international opera- tions forbidden by the Bill.' This Bill, as I have already stated, was not proceeded with. EVIDENCE RELATING TO OTHER COMBINATIONS. The Manila Contract. — ^Supplies for United States Army. A combination which came under my notice in the course of my inquiries is that in connexion with the contracts entered 'into from year to year with the Government of the ITnited States for the su[)ply of frozen beef and mutton for the use of the ITnited States Army at Manila, in the Philippine Islands. 35 Agreement as to Tendering. Tenders are called for by the United States Government for each fiscal year ending on 30th June, and I am informed that the Consular Department in Australia distributes copies of the printed form for tendering, or circular-proposal, as it is called, among the exporting companies. For some six or ten years past an agree- ment has been come to each year between the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy. and five other companies, that the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy. should submit a tender in its own name and that each of the six companies concerned in the agreement should furnish a specified proportion of the supplies under the con- tract, if obtained by the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy. The other companies concerned are John Cooke and Coy., Birt and Coy., Bergl Australia Ltd., the Burdekin River Meat Preserving Coy., and the Central Queensland Meat Export Coy. Mr. McGhie, who was the manager of the Queensland Meat Export and Agenc}^ Coy. when the agreement was first come to, says that it practically amounted to an arrangement that the other associated companies should not tender. The quantities called for under the circular-proposal for the year ending 30th June, 1915, are 6,000,000 lbs. of frozen beef, and 200,000 lbs. of frozen mutton, with the right on the part of the Government either to decrease the amount on reasonable notice to the contractor or to increase it with his consent. A copy of the agreement between the associated companies for this year has been furnished to me. Clause 2 is in the following terms : — 2. If the company's tender for beef and for mutton C.I.F.E. be accepted, they may enter into formal contract or contracts with the U.S. representative, and arrange for freight and freight contracts, insurance and exchange, and make all such arrangements by them deemed necessary for the proper fulfilment of the contract, in the company's name, but for the benefit and at the risk and expense in all things of the Associated Parties concerned, who are interested thei'ein, in the following respective proportions, viz. : — (a) One-twentieth of the whole (to be taken in such shipments and times as they deem fit) is reserved to the Q.M.E. and A. Coy. Ltd. {b) Of the residue (viz., 95 per cent, of the whole contract) there is reserved as follows :— To Queensland Meat Export and Agencv Coy. Ltd 33'64 per cent. „ John Cooke & Coy ' " 19-00 „ Birt & Coy. Ltd 16-00 „ Central Queensland ]Meat Export Coy. Ltd 1.5-00 „ „ Burdekin River Meat Preserving Coy. Ltd ... ... S-51 „ „ Bergl Australia Ltd ." 7-8.5 100-00 Mr. McGhie, when giving evidence, said that the United States Government looked for a substantial contractor who could supply the whole quantity, and that the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy. was in a position to do so. Mr. Marshall, the manager in Queensland for Bergl Australia Ltd., said in his evidence that his company could not supply the whole of the requirements and that the other companies could not do so. Mr. Colman, the general manager of the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy., writing to me on 11th August last, said : — The beef portion of this contract calls for hindquarters only, to be shipped trimmed and to be of certain weights, and the deliveries of the meat are made monthly. Inasmuch as none of the meat companies operate during the whole of one year, it would be almost impossible for any one company to carry out the whole of the contract under the special conditions, and for this reason about six of the companies supply certain proportions of the total quantity. My company supplies by far the greater quantity and the othei-s ship during the months when they are killing. Mr. Marshall's statement that none of the companies could supply the quantities required is inconsistent with Mr. McGhie's statement that his company could supply the whole of it, and, in fact, Mr. McGhie says that in one year the contract was secured by another Australian contractor. On the basis of the total output of each of the six associated companies for 1913 any one of them could have supplied the necessary quantities, but it may be that, as monthly supplies are called for and as none of the companies operate throughout the whole year, this is not a fair basis on which to estimate their capacity. I do not see, however, why, if adequate storage facilities are available, arrangements could not be made for setting aside a sufficient portion of the season's output to meet the contractual requirements. But, hoAvever this may be, if Mr. McGhie's recollection is accurate, the United States Government have apparently been influenced in accepting the Queensland Meat Export and Agency Coy.'s tender by the belief that that company could provide the whole amount recmired, and it is evident that they did not intend that the contract should 4580 E 2 s 36 i" be farmed out. This is shown by the provision in clause 25 of the specifications, which savs, ' Transfer of contract or interest in it is prohibited by law." The "agreement between the associated companies that all but one shall refrain from tendering, and that that one shall tender ostensibly for itself, but reall\- on behalf of itself and the others, is not only a violation of the specifications on which the contract is based, but is also an agreement in suppression of competition. Whether it has resulted in a higher ]5rice being paid by the Ignited States Government than would otherwise be the case I cannot say. Mr. Colman and Mr. McGhie both say that there is no cohesion between the diffei^ent companies concerned in purchasing supplies to fill the contract. liut that they V)iiy in competi- tion with one another. COMBINATIONS AMONG AUSTRALIAN EXPORTERS. Evidence as to Limited Competition in Victoria. Mr. Francis Clarke, a member of the Legislative Council of Victoria, giving evidence in Melbourne, said that it was the general opinion throughout Victoria that there was a limitation of competition amongst exporters, and that he did not recollect ever having met a man in the pastoralist's business who did not believe that there was limited competition. He added, very fairly, that after reading the evidence previously given he felt that he should modify that statement to some extent. Mr. Falconer, also giving evidence in Melbourne, said that it was the con- viction of pastoralists that prior to the time when Sims, Cooper, and Coy. came into the market in a large way competition was regulated and limited, particularly for lambs. The firms which in his opinion were concerned in this understanding were Angliss and Coy., John Cooke and Coy., and Borthwick and Sons, and his opinion is that they did not bid against one another and that lambs knocked down to one firm were divided afterwards with the others. He considers, however, that at the present time there is unrestricted competition, and that sellers are getting full prices for their stock. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not support these broad assertions of a regulation and limitation of prices. In purchasing for export, limits, based upon London prices, are given by the exporting firms to their buyers, and the buyers naturally try to keep within them as much as possible. This very oftfen results in an agreement being come to by buyers either to take alternate pens or to divide pens when buying at the sale yards, particularly after local needs are supplied and the exporters are the only buyers left in the market, but it does not follow that in so arranging they are acting under instructions from their princijials. Mr. Cordner. the chairman of the Stock Salesmen's Association in Victoria, does not regard this as any evidence of illegitimate combination. He says that buyers have always divided large lines of stock as far as his experience goes, and that a decrease of 2.000 or 3.000 sheep in the market causes men who have been friends one week to op]50se each other hotly the next. Mr. Clarke, who generalh' sells his lambs on the ground, says that he cannot get rival buyers to attend at the same time, and make competitive offers for lambs, but this is apparently not a customary Avay of doing Imsiness. It does not follow^ that there is such unanimity among buyers that the same price will be offered by all who insi)ect, and, in fact. Mr. Clarke's manager speaks of an occasion last year when John Cooke and Coy.'sbuyeroffered a better price than Sims, Cooper, and Coy. for lambs which the latter firm had ]ireviously insjiected. 'i'he fact must not be lost sight of, in considering whether an inference of pre- arrangement is to be drawn from evidence of uniformity of price, that where purchases are being made for the .same market, and limits of |)rices are fixed bv competent men thoroughly instructed as to the conditions of that market, it is not likely that there wMll be much range of variation. Mr. Angli.ss. Mr. A. A. Elder, and Mr. Bnlderstone all emphatically deny that, so far as their knowledge goes, the three firms which they represent have ever had an arrangeiiicnt as regards prices. Within the ai'ca from which the Riverina Coy. draws its supplies they do not compete with one another, but there is no evidence in sn|)port of the rumours referred to bv Mr. Niall. the O'eneral manager of Goldsbi'ough. Mort, and Coy., to the effect that thev allocate other areas to one another as non-competitive. Outside such areas, Mr. Niall thinks that there is competition. Afr. Afacrae. the joint manager in 37 Melbourne of Dalgety and Coy., says that he has never had any evidence of a restric- tion of competition either in the saleyards or in the country. Mr. Graham, in giving evidence, estimated tLat a profit of 2s. 5d. a head was made bv John Cooke and Coy. on a purchase of 641 lambs from Mr. Clarke early this year, and Mr. Clarke, in a letter which he Avrote to the Argus newspaper — a copy of which he sent me— went into figures, and calculated that a profit of at least 2s. "6d. a head must have been made. Mr. Ferguson afterwards stated that he had been able to get a very accurate statement of the actual profit made, and he put the figures before me with a request that they be not made public. On these figures the profit made was nothing like 2s. 5d. a head. None of the lambs actually realized as much as 5M. a lb., and even if all had realized that amount the profit, on the figures put before me, would not have been anything like 2s. 5d. a hend. V.4LUE OF Co-operative Works. Mr. Clarke is a strong advocate of the merits of co-operative works in country districts as a valuable weapon against a combination or threatened monopoly, and as a means of enabling the grower to dispose of his stock to the greatest advantage. He put forward some interesting figures which he had prepared illustrating the relative cost of working on the seaboard and in the country, and he referred to the fact that the Wimmera Inland Freezing Coy. was able to pay a dividend of 6^ per cent., although, as he said, prices were 2s. a "head higher in the districts from which It drew^ its supplies than in the surrounding districts. The matter Avas only touched on incidentally in the course of my inquiries, but the opinion of those exporters who discussed it appeared to be that the irregular seasons ex)ierienced in Australia constitute a difficulty in the way of country works, and that they can only be successfully carried on if" they have a large district to draw supplies from, good seasons, and a long working period in each year. The statement that prices were 2s. a head higher in the Wimmera district than outside it cannot be relied upon. It was made to Mr. Clarke by Mr. Bennett, the former secretary of the company, and by the present secretary, but it was apparently mere hearsay on theii- |)art. and the figures supplied to me by Mr. Balderstone and Mr. Ferguson in respect of the 1913- 1914 season show that in each case their purchases in the Wimmera district cost less on the average than their purchases in the remaining districts of Victoria. Regul.\tion of Prices in Queensland. I found a strong body of opinion among Queensland pastoralists to the effect that, in past years, it was the practice of the exporters to fix a uniform level of prices to be paid for cattle at the beginning of each season and to adhere to it what- ever fluctuations there might be elsewhere in the prices of meat or of by-products. It is admitted by the exporters, or at all events by most of them, that attemj^ts have been made from time to time to arrive at an understanding for the purpose of allot- ting different districts to the different groups of works — northern, central, and southern — from which to draw supjjlies, and for the purpose of fixing a uniform price within each district so allotted ; but the witnesses examined before me varied very much in their recollection of the nature of the arrangeinents made, of the time over which they extended, and of the extent to which they were observed in ]:)ractice. It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence in detail, as there is a general consensus of opinion that, whatever efforts may have been made in the ])ast to eliminate competi- tion, nothing of the kind exists now. Within the last two 3'ears or so new buyers have come into the field, the demand has increased, prices have hardened, and keen competitive conditions have prevailed. Facilities for Combination in Queensl.and. It must be borne in mind, however, that the circumstances that there are no public abattoirs in Queensland, and that the slaughtering of meat for export is ])ractically confined to the meat Avorks of the exporting firms, these being the onlv a[)pointed places under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act, create a' condition of affairs which places very great power in the hands of the exporting companies if they choose to combine for the purpose of crushing competition. Stock have been treated in the jjast for other ex]3orters at Birt antl Coy.'s works, and tiie otlier meat 38 works are pre{)ared to treat stock for pastoralists— but for pastoralists only — if sufficient notice is given, and if satisfactory arrangements can be made, but this degree of readiness to assist the pastoralist if he wishes to export on his own account does not detract from the dangerous facilities afforded for a monopolistic combina- tion. The experience which Mr. W., A. Thompson, of the firm of W. A. Harding and Coy., underwent in his endeavours to establish an exporting business in Brisbane in 1911 illustrate the difficulties with which a person desirous of exporting, but having no slaughtering or freezing works of his own, is confronted in Queensland. I AGILITIES FOR ExPORT IN OTHER STATES. In the other States the difficulties are not so great. In South Australia the work of slaughtei'ing, freezing, shipping, and, if so desired, selling in the English market is undertaken by the Government Produce Department, an institution which appears to me to afford an excellent illustration of useful State enterprise. In Victoria and in New South Wales public abattoirs provide facilities for slaughtering, and in addition dead meat may be bought from carcass butchers. In New South Wales an exporter who does not possess his own slaughtering establisliment and w^ho buys on the hoof must slaughter either at the abattoirs at Glebe Island or at the Australian Chilling and Freezing Coy.'s works at Aberdeen, on the Hunter River. This com]:)any undertakes the work of slaughtering, freezing, and shipping for others as a part of its ordinary business, but its capacity is, of course, limited, and its situation renders it of service only to those who draw their supplies from the northern districts of the State. The accommodation at Glebe Island is limited, and it is the practice to lease the killing houses from time to time to the highest bidder. The majority of the occupants are themselves engaged in the export trade. Under normal conditions, with fair supplies of stock coming forward, the killing space is fully occupied, and a new-comer in the trade might find a diffi- culty in securing s])ace in competition with an established firm. No evidence was given of anything of this kind having actually happened, but the existing conditions undoubtedly facilitate combinations for the purpose of suppressing competition. New abattoirs are being built at Homebush, but, in the interim rejiort on the supply and distribution of meat [)resented by the New South Wales Commission of Inquiry as to food supplies and prices, it is stated that the accommodation provided is quite inadequate for the requirements of the metropolitan area. No evidence was given in Victoria as to the existence of any difficulty in obtaining slaughtering accommodation in that State. Both in New South Wales and in Victoria there are freezing establishments which freeze and store for others. In Victoria, in addition, cool stores have been l)uilt l\v the Government. Mr. Crowe, the Exports Superintendent, says that the object of the Government in building them was to provide facilities for those who wished to export on their own account, and, after their requirements were served, to treat meat on behalf of any exporter as long as there was space. SYDNEY MEAT PRESERVING COMPANY. Another matter which came under observation in the course of my inquiries was the effect upon the exjiort trade of the operations in the market of the Sydney Meat Preserving Coy. This company sells carcass muttoii to exporters from time to time, but its primary business is that of canning meat. Its product, which has, I believe, earned a high reputation in the market, is partly disposed of in Western Australia, and partly exported to the United Kingdom and to the Pacific Islands. Subsidy from Pastoralists. For some years [)ast it has been in receipt of a subsidy from stock-owners, who sell at Flemington, of 10s. per cent, on the amount of their sales. The subsidy, which is ])aid by nearly all selling pastoralists, is described as voluntary, but the fact that a certain degree of compulsion exists is shown by Mr. Gee's statement that the company 39 refrains from buying from a pastoralist who does not pay it. In return for this payment it is said that the company considers the interests of pastoralists more than of its shareholders in its buying, and that out of consideration for those interests, and in order to regulate the level of prices, it buys, or at all events bids for, more stock than it requires for its trade. It is said on behalf of the company that the inducement to pastoralists to pay the subsidy is that it protects them from combina- tions of buyers, and from sacrifices of their stock in times of glut in the market. On the other hand, other buyers complain that the receipt of the subsidy enables the company to pay higher prices than its competitors, and that in deliberate exercise of this power and in order to force prices up it bids for all classes of stock coming into the market. Effect on Export Trade. Those exporters who referred to the matter in giving evidence before me expressed the opinion that the company's operations did at times tend to restrict the export trade, but that with the higher range of prices which has prevailed during the last two years the effect of their buying in this direction has not been so notice- able. Every additional buyer in the market tends, of course, to raise prices, and, if he is in the fortunate position of not being compelled to study the market so closely as his competitors, his competition is the more formidable; but, though, to this extent, the presence in the field of the Sydney Meat Preserving Coy. must inter- fere with the prices which exporters are compelled to pay, the evidence adduced before me does not suggest that, so far as the export trade is concerned, this inter- ference, taken as a whole, has been of a very serious character. Mr. Gee says that, in ordinary circumstances, probably not more than 20 per cent, of the meat which he purchases is suitable for export as frozen meat. Mr. Sidney Kidman, a pastoralist who does not pay the subsidy, considers that it may have been useful in times gone by, but that there are now plenty to buy and sell, and that pastoralists do not require the assistance of the company to enable them to obtain fair prices for their stock. Mr. T. A. Field and Mr. Agnew are also of opinion that without it the pastoralist would generally get a fair return for his stock. The effect of the subsidized buying of the company — more particularly in its effect on the local meat trade — was gone into very fully and carefully by the New South Wales Commission of Inquiry as to food supplies and prices, and the matter is dealt with at some length in its interim report presented last year on the supply and distribution of meat. The majority — not a large one — of the members came to the conclusion that the existence of the company as the exclusive recipient of a subsidy from the pastoralists was on the whole detrimental to the meat trade of the State; that it was unnecessary to secure to the pastoralist a fair return for his stock; that its tendency was to increase the price to the consumer or to force an inferior quality of meat upon the local market; that it hampered the export trade in frozen mutton; that its operations interfered with free and fair competition in the stock market; and that the conditions under which the meat trade was carried on would be improved if the subsidy were discontinued. They recommended that the Government of New South Wales should take the question of its payment into consideration, with a view to taking such steps as might be deemed desirable. The dissentient minority did not consider that the evidence sufficiently estab- lished these detrimental tendencies, and they thought that, if the subsidy were abolished and the company pursued its operations without it, the effect in raising prices would probably be very much the same as it then was. I do not know whether any, and if so what, action is contemplated by the Government of New South Wales, but it will no doubt adopt whatever measures it considers expedient for the protection of the local meat trade, and it may be that these measures will afl'ord any necessary protection to the export trade. I do not think, however, that the evidence as to the existing condition of affairs establishes any restriction on or interference with the export trade of such a character as to call for action by the Government of the Commonwealth. The allegations made by Mr, Hughes to the effect that since the outbreak of the war the Sydney Meat Preserving Coy. has altered its methods and that its operations show an intention of trying to establish a monopoly in the sale of carcass meat to exporters cannot be supported. I have no doubt that Mr. Hughes believed in the truth of the representations which he made, and it is the fact that the company is buying lambs for the first time in its career, but the only departure which it has 40 made from it>s ordinary methods is that it has contracted to supply F. J. Walker and Coy. with 6.000 carcasses of sheep. 2,000 of which are to he lambs. Mr. Walker says that he required that number of carcasses to complete an order for the Ignited Kingdom, and that he could not obtain supplies from the carcass butchers. The price paid was in accordance with the ruling rates at the time. SUMMARY. In the foregoing pages I have endeavoured to deal with every feature of importance brought under my notice in the course of my inquiries, and, so far as the circumstances jtermit of definite conclusions being arrived at, it may be convenient to summarize those at which I have arrived. 1. The American companies trading in the United Kingdom which belong to the group popularly known as the American Beef Trust have been purchasers of Australian meat, through distributing agencies abroad, for some considerable time. 2. Since the removal of the imjiort duty on meat by the Ignited States Govern- ment last year these companies, and others engaged in the trade in the United States, have made purchases through distributing agents in Australia and elsewhere for shipment to the United States. 3. All the foregoing purchases have been made in the ordinary course of business, and there is nothing to indicate that they were not made under ordinary competitive conditions. 4. The three English companies representing the three American firms most prominently ilic Health, Sydney, Cth October, 1914. Sir, With reference to the inquiry in your letter of 3rd October regarding unte-inortem inspection of cattle and sheep intended to be shiughtered for export, I have to inform you that sheep receive no ofBcial ante-mortem inspection. In regard to cattle, a careful veterinary inspection is carried out at Flemington saleyards by myself or ]Mr. Assistant Veterinary Inspector Walters every sale day. Cattle judged to be unfit for food are condemned and shot at yards. Cattle showing only slight signs of disease, or cattle suspected of being diseased or unfit for food, are marked with green paint and are required to be slaughtered at Glebe Island abattoirs. The final disposition of carcases in this cise is decided by the post-iiiork'm inspection at Glebe Island. At premises where cattle are slaughtered for export, but where the supply of cattle does not pass through Flemington saleyards, the lay meat inspector at the works carries out ((nti-uKirlfiri inspection. This examination is, however, in my opinion, of little sanitary si;.;nificance, and cannot be regarded as satisfactorj- for the following reasons : — (1) In many cases, proper facilities do not exist for conducting tlie work. (2) No separate place to slaughter " suspects " is provided. (3) The average lay meat inspector, (iven if he possesses the ability to do so, does not care to take the responsiliility of condemning cattle at the antc-inortcm examination. I am, N'oui's i'aithftilly, (!. K. TlIOHl'E, Veterinary Inspector in cliarge of ileat Export. 43 APPENDIX B. Live Stock ix the Several States and Territories op the Commonwealth. Cattle. Territories. Year. New South Wales. Victoria. Queensland. South Australia. Western Australia. Tasmania. Common- wealth. Northern. Federal. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. 1904 ' 2,149,129 1.685,976 2,722,340 272,4,59 561,490 201,206 247.920 — 7,840.520 1905 .. 2,337,973 1.737.690 2,963.695 304,027 631,825 206,211 346,910 8,528,331 190fi .. 2.549,944 1,804.323 3,413,919 325,724 690,011 211,117 354.371 — 9,349,409 1907 .. 2,751,193 1,842.807 3,892,232 334,671 717,377 215..523 374,683 — 10,128,486 1908 .. 2,955,934 1,574,162 4,321,600 340,376 741.788 205,827 407.992 — 10,.547.679 1909 .. 3,027,727 1,549.640 4,711,782 344,034 793.217 199,945 414,046 — 11.040,391 1910 .. 3,140,307 1,547.569 .5,131,699 384,862 825,040 201,854 513.383 — 11.744,714 1911 .. 3,185,824 1.647,127 5.073,201 393,566 843,638 217,406 459,780 8.412 11,828.954 1912 .. 3,033.726 1.. 51 18.089 .5.210.891 383,418 806,294 222,181 405,552 7,108 11,577.259 1913 .. 2,836,801 l,528.5.-.3 5.271,746 352.905 829,489 •222,181 *405,-552 t *n.447.227 Sheep. 190-( 34,526.894 10,167.691 10.843,470 5.820,301 2,8,53.424 1,557,460 54,678 — 65,823.918 190R .. 39,506,764 I1.4.V..115 12.535,231 6.277.812 3.120.703 1,583,.561 61,730 — 74,540,916 1906 .. 44,132,421 12.937.440 14,886,4:-i8 6,624.941 3,340,745 1,729,394 36,276 — 83,687,655 1907 .. 44,461,839 14.146.734 16,738,047 6,829,637 3,684,974 1,744,800 44,232 — 87,650,263 1908 .. 43,370,797 12.54.5.742 18,348,851 6,898,451 4,097,324 1,728,053 54,048 — 87,043,266 1909 .. 46,-.;02,578 12,937,983 19,593,791 6.432,038 4,731,737 1.734,761 43,393 — 91,676,281 1910 ,. 45.560,969 12,882,665 20,331,838 6,267,477 .5,158,516 1,788,310 57,240 — 92,047,015 1911 .. 44,722,523 1.3,857.8114 20,740,981 6,171,907 .5,411,.542 1,823,017 50,983 224,764 93,003,521 1912 .. 38,855 861 11,892.224 20,310,036 5,481,489 4,596,958 1,862,669 75,808 188,641 83,263,686 1913 .. 39,842,518 12,113,682 21,678,729 5,073,057 4,418.102 •1,862,669 •75,808 t $85,064,865 1912 figures. 1913 particulars not yet available. t Included with New South Wales, not yet available separately. Subject to notes * and 1 . 4689 P 2 44 APPENDIX C. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. Statement for each op the Years 190i to 1913, inclusive, of the Exports of Beef, Mutton, and Lamb, from each State to the United Kingdom, the United Statks OP America, and THE Far East, together with the Total Exports; also Available Particulars for 1914. Beef. i — Jvew South Wales. Victoria. ' Queensland. South Australia, i Commonwealth. TJnited Kingdom Par East Other Countries lbs. 267,387 277,077 & 3,783 3,221 lbs. 20,446 62,685 909,245 £ 334 823 14,398 lbs. 1904. 3,648,404 7,231,407 24,674,294 & 35,298 81,143 303,437 lbs. £ lbs. 3.668,850 7,561,479 25,860,616 £ 35,632 85,749 321,056 Total 544,464 7,004 992,376 15,555 35,554,105 419,878 - — 37,090,945 442,437 United Kingdom U.S. America ... Far Ea*t Other Countries 32 '.691 14,760 424,659 l,30.s,2.-.o 3,016 123 4,800 15,720 11,410 37,466 1,324,588 157 628 1 7,539 1905. 1,271,094 13,.509.422 2,5,302,741 13,615 147,.597 238,730 — — 1,603,195 14,760 13,971,547 27,935,5S4 16,788 123 153,025 271,989 Total 2,1168,365 23,659 1,373,464 18,324 40,083,257 399,942 — — 43,525,086 441,925 United Kingdom Ear East Other Countries 61.418 845,965 3,772,035 400 9,986 30,439 295,295 176.585 770.508 3,138 2,158 9,658 1906. 1,349,673 20,874,277 14,415,496 12.358 220.033 146,285 — 1,706.386 21,896.827 17,958,039 15,895 2.32,177 186,382 Total 3,679.418 40.825 ■ 1,242,38.S 14.954 36,639,446 378,676 ■ — — 41.561,252 434,454 United Kingdom Far East Other Countries 781,437 436 168 '.'11,234 7,206 5.084 12,115 442,151 308,859 451,429 4,529 4,273 5,975 1907. 7,133,5.59 2O,81x.740 20,764,015 76,168 228,603 231,779 — — 8,360.147 21.563.767 22.126.678 87,903 237,960 249,869 Total 2,131,839 24,405 1,202,139 14,777 48,716,314 536,550 — — 52,050,, 592 575,732 "United Kingdom Far East Other Countries 25,080 298.506 4i '2,237 293 4,136 4.636 928,122 426,325 255,587 9 624 5,692 3,727 1908. 11,290.257 20,803,954 6,140,731 122,202 233,403 65,943 140,717 1,895 1,895 12,384,176 21, .528.785 6,798,555 134,014 243,231 74,306 Total 725,823 9,065 1,610,034 19,043 38.234,942 421,548 140,717 40,711,516 451, .551 United Kingdom Far East Other Countries 467,985 262,496 291,' 83 .5.117 3,098 3,731 1,381,782 77,648 157,547 13,460 1,266 1,988 1909. 50,927.346 12,474,827 .5,100,981 514,467 137,293 52,790 — — 52,777,113 12,814,971 5,550,211 533,044 141,657 58,509 Total 1,022,164 11,946 1,616,977 16,714 68,503,154 704,550 — — 71,142,295 733,210 United Kingdom Far East Other Countries 7,467,4.50 381,.55S 896,353 83.432 4,027 10,419 3,437,912 11,769 638,604 38,238 161 5,831 1910. 80.345,374 11,248,676 4,999,832 845.992 140,605 50,441 — — 91.250.726 11,642,003 6,534,789 967,662 144,793 66,691 Total ^,74.5,361 97,878 4,088.285 44,230 96,593,882 1,037,038 — 109,427,528 1,179,146 United Kingdom Far East Other Countries 4,3.59,060 284,098 2,651,672 43.437 2,931 29,812 2,230,266 866 1,974,860 27,022 14 18,117 1911. 74,911,734 12,732,426 9,641,435 742,934 143,764 94,101 — 81,.501,060 13.017,390 14,267,967 813,393 146,709 142,030 ■ Total 7,294,830 76,180 4,205,992 4.5,153 97,285,595 980,799 — 108,78M,417 1,102,132 United Kingdom U.S. America ... Far East Other Countries 3,875,528 289 777,368 3.244.646 38,315 5 8,958 50,966 2,241,012 1,100 2,340,528 28,247 16 26,531 1912. 102,290,153 1.5,737,282 11,222,003 1,173,992 179.856 118,863 480,167 4,982 108,886,860 299 16,515,7.50 16,807,177 1,245,536 188,830 196.360 Total 7,897,831 98,244 4,582,640 54,794 129,249,438 1,472,711 480,167 4,982 142,210,076 1,630,731 United Kingdom U.S. America ... Far East Other Countries 7,147,.502 3,727,862 538,477 6,758,734 91,680 .50,021 6,726 99,507 8,119,579 52,590 6,000 1,844,079 123,588 950 68 21,500 1913. 152,916,114 1,257,317 17,22,5.928 17,108,761 1,801,924 15,867 214,694 199,487 1,750,096 435,567 20,786 5,477 169,963,291 .5,037,769 17,770,405 26,147,141 2,037,978 66,838 221,488 325,971 Total 18,172,575 247,934 10,022,248 146,106 188,538,120 2,231,972 2,18.5,663 26,263 218.918,606 2,652,275 45 s s o EH £ < o O E-i P o 02 Eh rt O fk X X s OQ }2i O EH O a: PS Ea . K O ea o H' a EH . Ci CD s 00_iS_O co^ tO_00^Oi_ 03_ co^io rN t^ CI to tO^ Ci_^ ^„ -^^ -*< 'ii 00 0^ . «rt od"rc"'c' r-" 'Ttr^Oi cT ^ Oi " l'^*" i-Tco cf t-T 10 r-" 'S cT f— r io"co'" ^-1 J3 CO t— 1 »o iO CO ^ 10 CO r-. CO ci -f CI ^ 0. I-H ^ .GO CD r-t tO CO ■4J "* >— 1 to CO CM OD Ot ■"i. "^ co CI S4 1 □ a 1 fH I-H ^ OS t^ to (M CO — ' -f (M CD t— »o CO -H t>- T-H CO to -+< 10 00 CO Oi 04 — ' CO CO 0:1 »r- ~ "* t^ CO t- GO .— -»H tQ CO — »x» -*" CO CO a :2 Oi C^ 00 10 co" IC CO -f t^c^'co" CO 00" CD t^ Ci CO cf Ci •« CO oT i--^Cl^C^ — "r^Ci" CO Ci CO CC t-' aC co_ to* •^o 71Z --z- CO to Cl to 10 »n CO Ci t~~ ^ CiZ IM -* Ci CD CO c; t^ C C b-^ oo__ t--. IC lO oq_ d to Ci ^„ to O lO C) CO -T- t- to .— CC Ci ic ^ --r b-" M r-i (M cc" r- 1— — . 0" OD CO CC CO .— t> C --H lO CD CO .-< -*- to W 00 to to »o '3 ^ ""1 1 oi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 '^ '* _, T^ t- CS 10 ."o '■r ~f H 00 si 1 co^ « 1 1 to 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO 5I 1 CI 1 1 1 1 C-1 w CO - 10 CO CD CO CO l^- l>. Oi c:i^ C-^ r-l Ci_ I>- 1^ d t« GO , Tfl' '^" 1 r cT cf 1 , cf '^1 t t CI '^■•'" [ 1 b- ^ CO 1 1 CO t- 1 t- Ci 1 1 Ci ^ 1 1 'c3 ,_, I ■"■ <—> ' ' ^ '-' ■"■ ■"■ h- M Cs lO .- Ci OS X CD CD ^ CO CO to ■0 CO -t^ (O to Oi Ci ^ iO to CO^ co_ co^ co^ — :. ■Ci ■ Oi ■^ -f 3 so 1 "fT 10" 0^ 1 1 r^ '*•" Ci" 1 Ci" 00" 0" 1 1 — " t~- 1 1 ^ " CI 1 CI ^ 1 1 00 Oi to 1 1 to CO 00 1 CQ t- ' t^ ~f ' ' ■^r tc^ 1 1 to 00^ ' CO -p 1 1 ■*< 1 (xT s ^" t^ CO*" cc" Ci" Oi" ^ ^ Ci (— > to .—1 to t-" CO •— > Oi Ci Ci Ci Oi Oi 00 c^ 10 ,-, t>- 1--4 r^ 10 i-H CO t^ t- to i^ C^-H-1* ■ ,-H -+" b- CO -^ 1-H to GO CO •0 CD to CO to CO 10 t- >C CO CD to -* — ' CO OQ Ci CO CO CD to -** CD Oi »0 CC CO 1— < 05 so ■^ Ci CO CO 00 Oi^O^ M^ CI X o_ CC 00 b^ ««? ^iM'to" co'-fjTt-T 0" o'^'-o" cT -in ■*"!>•" co" co" cf 0" . ud" — "t-^o" Oi 10 to (N .-i cq CO CD PO 00 '-' ' Ci ■* I-H 10 i-H 1 ' OS to to -O 1 CO to -tJi CO t>. t- It- j_, to coco t- CC ^ -* CO Ci t- CO O) t- t- to -<*< t^ CO CI Ci -* -9* 1-H CI »o ■— ( 00 -f CO --H ^ 3 c^ 10 to CO 0D_iO t- tO^iO ^ t^t-^'tj^ Oi^ to !>■ X to to CO to a- irTcTc-f co" cfifTo' Ci icTio'cT co" t-Tco'^o' 00 I-H -O CO to ^ CD en ^ Oi '-i:i CO CO Cl »o X) Ji CO to -f, t- CO CO -H CO CO .-H .0 rH 00 M CO CO -r t- Ci >— 1 '.0_ to to^-^ ~*1, 10 L^ CO Ci d Ci GO rrt 00 -tT -tl cs" cT c-f cf FO" 10" CO Ci :. .co~..._ c- t^ 1-H Ci to to CM 10 CT> CO t- .-H CO CO iO CO t-co CI -t4 CiO CO CO Ci -tH to - t> f^^^■'T' ■-** CO <— > l>- 't' .— 1 CO tr- to_Tr;t--_ c^ ^^co^^_ X Ci^Cl 0_ co^ =* — T^'t^ 0" b-T to' -I'" co" cT co" cr ; cd" Ci" I>-".-h"cO cT ^ cf <7> ^ to t- CO CO '.-H !>. .Ci Q .2 Oi (N CI CO CO ^ 1 -^ CO ■* ~ti -+I , . .13 to ^0 i> t-_CO Ci •rt- ■Ci Ci CO ,_, N C>'^ 10 00 -H -^ (-, 00 10 to ' CO t^ 0 »0 o_ CO CO 00 -rf 0_.-'^'— _ CO t-- to_ -f 10 to CO (xTf-H^cr GO o"ci"^" cf .o"ci"o' tn -^ i>r »o" co" -r"G/:"o" CO ^ ^ CD 0" J3 — ( Cs to m C> 00 ^ .-' c*o CI >— CI -J5 -+- CO 00 CO Tt, ""t. to__ to -p -f Ci ■■^ 0^ rf .-T co" l^ CO to" b-~ co" ' ^ CO r— t^ TH ■"^ ri |C1 CO CO CI CI CO CO tfS 0> CO D- T CO CO 60 CO :Ci -^ GO ^ Ci t- eo CO ^ to CO t- Ci CO jr" -# CO C^ GO -TT- CO ICi l>- Ci t— — 1 CO -rt* Ci ut> — ' Ci CO CI ?0 CO OS to t- oD o CJ :GO CO -#_ t>. "*' '^^ Oi_ '^^O^OO^^ -ft CO to t- 05 «« ■^-ToTo in" ! co'"co'»o' co" ' ~^~^ cf CO CO"t--^G»D' M'" oco"cf co" co"i>."^ ^ fio 00 ir- .— 1 1— t rt< t- ■N r- fO CO .-( to ■ -Tl I-H t^ CI -«Jf »o '^ r* (M ^ ^H 10 iCO CO .to ■^ I-H CO -T- to to to ^ 1 ;. i ^ S ! ; j ■ j k to ^ CO CO ! ^^ to CO t>- ^ Ot- ^^ I Orj GO CO Ci 10 -*^ 00 .-, t' -tH CO ^ W. 1.0 -* -1" -T- b- t-- CO lO — 1 l>. to if^ CO t^ 'X Ci 00 X' X to -* rv CO x> ^ t-^-^ t-^^ yD t- CO CO t- ■"l ~^„ ^ '^^ & (m" yS' 'o" to" ; -t" CD CO t-" 0' t-' -T-" cf to cicf b- t- CO t~ -f -f"to*' 1 -fT « Xi to CO CO CO -:I^A- CO CO CO h- CO -H to CO t- ?r: 5M CO Ci -H t- 00 1^; to^t- ^i to^ CO -M t^ ci^ro^-t^ ,0 ■ ■^.•■\^^ 00^ 1 00 .-H CD_ CO^ to XJ CO CO (iT to" (M*^ lo".-! cf y^ io .-* CO CD'rH"cD" ■«# ^ -co" CO ?^ CO l-H -H CO ■-■ l«o >b CO -f 10 to j : : : t iS "<» ■ : dom ries ... : dom ries : 3 r 03 CJ : • dom ... 1 ries * 2 • « • bo -*^ rt be -^ a : a '3 ^ .^ '3 CO -*J *rt bo *^ Is ° :| -3 ;■-' • r! -^3 ..-. . -3 ■4J •-" s •'- • 3 HJ M^§ ^ . :- ^^ s c. W -^ !±l-io ^1^ p '. ■3 J ^■ 71 H ^^^ H Z ^'^ H H i ^^^i H ^§0 ^ ■^f^ S3 ■-2^ g B^ 5? S^ 'S ^^ s ' SH^,.. • i 'fl^5 *3 13:3 ■■5 US «^^ '^U-B-- ■3!3^ 1 1 tifs-O t^faO I^P^O ^fnO ;^&ho tsPnO i 46 Statement for e.\ch of the Years 1904 to 19i:5, inclu.sive. of the Exports of Beef, Mutto.\% AND Lamb, etc.— continued. Mutton . New South Wales. Victoria, Queensland. South Australia. Commonwealth. 1 United Kingdom Far East Other Countries lbs. 70,872,887 621,834 4,973,861 £ 741,272 5,921 55,717 lbs. 22,107,287 40,262 72,244 I & I lbs. & 1910. 258,018 28,490,653 243.975 386 1,014,691 9,6.Si; 638 1,179,548 9,469 lbs. j 3,761,945 76,075 £ 31, ,539 465 lbs. 125,232.772 I ,676.787 6,301,728 £ 1,274.804 15.943 66,289 Total 76,468,582 802.910 22,219.793 259,042 30.684,892 '263.080 3.838.020 32,004 133.211,287 1,357.0.36 United Kingdom Far East Other Countries 44.473,483 1,386.418 4,635,052 472,596 14,357 57,780 26,181,428 8,590 912,648 1911. 316,747 1 6,170,441 I 200 685,006 1 9,312 375,761 56.009 7;02'.( 3,362 2,361,361 i - 19,230 79,189.713 2,080,014 5.923,461 864,582 21.5.S0 70,4.54 Total .50,494.953 .544,733 ' 27,102,666 j 326,259 7,231.208 66,401) f 2.364,361 19,230 87.193,188 956,622 United Kingdom U.S. America Far East Other Countries 29.375,949 1,312 1,358,5.36 2,690,625 359,601 20 17,496 37,891 ! 1 1 '' 26,330,093 338,325 j 694.615 8,073 1 12. 15,197,649 407,282 826,705 1 180,065 ' 5,260 ; 10,432 2.974.655 32.724 30,068 257 73.878,346 1,312 1,765,818 4,244,669 908,059' 20 22,756 56,653 Total 33,426,422 415,008 27,024,708 346,39^ 16.431,636 ; 195,757 3,007,37y 30,325 79,890,145 987,488 United Kingdom U.S. Amenca Far East Other Countries 68,551.073 451,765 786.622 6.078.23S 885,317 5.904 9,776 88,552 45,854,581 2,165,040 19 627,547 29,884 13. 24,742,418 66,349 850,314 2,008,050 281,674 830 8,789 21,447 2,395,535 191,223 30,870 2,749 141.646.607 5i8;:i4 1,636,936 10,442,551 l,825.40Jt 6,734 18,565 142,632 Total 75,870,698 989,549 48,019,621 657,431 27,667,131 812,740 2,586,758 33,619 154,144,208 1,993,339 United Kicgdom Far East Other Countries 13,887,483 223,480. 149,931 199,643 2,948 2 382 34,995.170 26.065 97,899 La 19 499,999 306 1,228 ml). 10. 467,282 172,135 16,308 4.903 2,242 185 6,973,890 8,400 90,583 58 56,323,825 421,680 272,538 795,128 5,496 3,853 Total 14,260,894 204,973 35,119,134 501,,533 655,725 7,330 6,982,290 90,641 61.944 540 57,018,043 804,477 United Kingdom Far East Other Countries ... 8,833,948 402,704 217.381 128,099 5,897 3,298 27,72.-.,013 15.875 47,682 19 471.378 223 648 U. 296,417 85,575 7,1.35 3,630 1,248 95 4,711,988 32,386 41,667,366 504,1.^4 304,587 665.051 7,368 4,581 Total 9,454,036 137,294 27,788,570 472,249 389,127 4,973 4,744,374 62,484 42,376,107 677,000 United Kingdom U.S. America Far liast 1 Otiier Countries 7,979,126 739 511,28.-, 120,25b 129,970 15 .8,476 2,088 23,296,998 83,705 19 414,554 1,392 12. 184,419 35,235 2,915 2,171 607 48 3,217,283 49,875 44,894 675 34,677,826 739 546,520 256,751 591,589 15 9,083 4,203 Total 8,611,406 140,549 23,380,703 41.5,946 222,569 2,826 3,267,158 45,569 35,4S1,836 604,890 United Kingdom ir.S. America Fur East Other Countries 12,935.233 52 894 554,2 .36,019 181,571 Total 22,.556,fi09 28,083,070 543,261 3,958,306 55,807 423,323 5,377 55,021,308 927,660 47 APPENDIX D. List of the Principal Firms or Companies engaged in the Meat Export Trade FROM Australia. Xame of Firm or Company. State or States in which Business Is carried on. Xature of Business carried on. Capacity of Works.* Killing Storage. Distributing Agencies. Abbotsford Packing Coy. Anderson, M. G. Angliss and Coy. A.rkell and Douglass New South Wales South Australia... New South Wales Victoria — Imperial Works, Footscray. Bourke - street, Melbourne. South Australia... New South Wales Buy dead meat and can at own works. Slaughters and freezes at Government Produce Depot. As lessees of Daroobalgie Freezing Works, slaughter and freeze. Yuills Ltd.. London. Australian Chilling New South Wales and Freezing Coy. Australian Meat Coy. ' New South Wales Australian Meat Ex- Queensland^ port Coy. Brisbane Slaughter, freeze, can at own works. Freezing only and Slaughter and freeze at Government Produce Depot. Buy canned meat. Slaughter and freeze at 100 cattle and 1,500 sheep a day. 7,000 lambs a day. 1,000 lambs a day. own works ; slau^rhter and freeze for others. Balchin Ltd. Barnes, J Baynes Bros. Bergl Australia ltd. Birt and Coy. Townsville New South Wales New South Wales Queensland Queensland Queensland — Murarrie Musgrave Slaughter and can at own works. Slaughter, freeze, and | can .at own works. Slaughter, freeze, and can at own works. Buy dead or canned meat. Buys dead meat and cans ! at own works Slaughter and can at own works ; slaughter and I sell carcasses. I Slaughter, freeze, and :' can at own works. Slaughter and freeze at own works ; slaughter and freeze for others buy dead meat. I Freezing only ... :S,000 a day. 5,000 cattle a year. 500 cattle and 2,500 sheep a day. 500 cattle and 2,000 sheep a day. 5,000 carcasses mutton. 90,000 carcasses Iamb. 20,000 carcasses lamb. 60,000 carcasses mutton. Angliss and Coy., London. Australian Chilling and Freezing Coy., London, and Colo- nial Consignment and Distributing Coy., London, Australiiin Meat Coy,, London, 1,700 tons 1,300 tons I Swift Beef London, Coy., Slaughter and can at own works. Biboohra Meat Ex- Queensland port Cor. Borthwiok, Thomas, Victoria— and Sons. Brooklyn Works, \ Slaughter and freeze at Footscray. ' own works. , Portland ... ' Slaughter and freeze at I own works. Queensland ,,, , Slaughter and freeze at ; own works. South Australia. Burdekin River Meat j Queensland Preserving Coy. ' ! Slaughter and freeze at Government Produce Depot. Slaughter and freeze at own v.'orks. 100 cattle and 1,000 sheep a day. 140 cattle a day. 100 cattle, or 100 cattle and 600 sheep a day. j 120 cattle, or 2,400 sheep : a day. lOii cattle a I a day. 2,500 lambs a day. 1,0U0 lambs a day. 230 cattle, or 140 cattle and 1,000 sheep a day. 1.50U tons 1,030 tons SOO tons C. .T, Piggott, and Libby, McNeill, and Libby, London, Libby, McNeill, and Libby, London. Stephenson and Pae. and Weddel and Coy,, London. Bergl -Australia Ltd,. London. h Birt. Potcer, and Hvighes Ltd., London. 20,000 carcasses j 'i lamb. I I 20.000 carcasses j | lamb, 1 i Thomas Borthwick l,Oi«i tons ... i {' Ltd., London. Byron Bay Co-opera- , New South Wales ^ Slaughter and can at own tive Canning and ' works. Freezing Coy. ■Central Queensland Queenslaml ... Slaughter, freeze, and Meat Export Coy. can at own works. 300 cattle, cr 100 cattle I and 1,000 I sheep a day. SO cattle a day 350 cattle, or 200 cattle and 1.200 sheep a day. SOO tons. 2,000 tons B. and W, D.avidson. London, Colonial Consign- ment and Distrilm- ting Coy,. London. * In all cases the capacity is that supplied from official source?. 48 List of the Principal Firms or Companies engaged in the Meat Export Trade FROM Australia — continued. Name of Firm or Company. State or States in which Business is carried on. Nature of Business carried on. Capacity of Works.* Killing. Storage. Distributing Agencies. Co-operative Export Coy. Cooke, John, and Coy. Cumberland Packing Coy. Field, T. A Fletcher, W. and R., Ltd. Gladstone Meat Works of Queens- land, Ltd. Glen Packing Coy. ... Gollin and Coy. Government Produce Department. Harding, J. W.. and Cov. Haughtou, Wm., and Coy. Hunter River Meat Coy. Kensington Preserv- ing Coy. Kidman, Arthur Lilyfield Packing Coy. Little, Robert, and Coy. Moss, J. W., and Coy. National Packing Coy. Nevanas, S. V., and Coy.^ Pacific Commercial Coy. Pastoral Finance As- sociation Ltd. Queensland Meat Ex- port and Agency Coy. South Australia... New South Wales Victoria ... Queensland New South Wales New South Wales Victoria Queensland New South Wales New South Wales South Australia... Queensland South Australia... New South Wales Victoria New South Wales New South Wales New South Wales Victoria Queensland New South Wales Victoria New South Wales Victoria ... South Australia... New South Wales New South Wales Queensland- ' Brisbane Townsville i Slaughter and freeze at Government Produce Depot. Slaughter and freeze at own works. Slaughter and freeze at own works. Slaughter, freeze, and can at own works. Buy dead meat and can at own works. Slaughters at abattoirs and freezes at other works ; slaughters and sells carcasses. Slaughter and freeze at own works ; buy dead meat. Slaughter and freeze at own works. Buy dead meat and can at own works. Buy canned meats Slaughters, freezes, and cans for exporters. Slaughters at own works and freezes at others ; slaughter and sell car- casses. Slaughter and freeze at Government Produce Depot ; buy dead meat. Slaughter at other works, and can at own works. Buy dead meat and can at own works. Buys dead and canned meat. Buy dead meat and can at own works. Buy dead and canned meat ; slaughter and fr?eze at other works. Buy dead and canned meat ; slaughter and freeze at other works. Buy dead and canned meat. I Buy dead and canned meat. Buy dead and canned meat. Buy dead meat and can at own works. Slaughter and freeze at other works ; buy dead [ and canned meat. Slaughter and freeze at Government Produce Depot I buy dead and canned meat. Buy dead and canned meat. Slaughter at abattoirs and freeze at own works ; slaughter and freeze for others ; buy dead meat. Slaughter, freeze, and can at own works. Slaughter, freeze, and can at own works. 150 cattle and 5,000 sheep a day. 3,000 lambs a day. 400 "cattle or 280 cattle and 1,600 sheep a day. 100,000 carcasses mutton. 60,000 carcasses lamb. 150,000 carcasses mutton or S'.I.OOO quarters beef. 1,600 lambs a 28,000 carcasses day. laral 320 cattle, or 100 cattle and 1,500 sheep a day. 8,1100 lambs a day. 120 cattle and 20 sheep a day. 1,200 tons 21 II 1,000 carcasses mutton. General Produce Coy,, London. Weddel and Coy., London. R. and W. Davidson, London. Gordon, Woodroffe, and Coy., London. W. and R. Fletcher Ltd., London, Gollin and Cov., London. Morrison and Coy., London ; — Osborne, Glasgow. Haughton and Coy., London. Gilbert, Anderson. and Coy., London. R, and W. Davidson, London. Hudson, Policy, and Coy., Loudon (frozen meat only). McKerrow Brothers, Liverpool (canned meat only). ■\ London Produce I Coy., anil Gordon, j Woodroffe, and J Coy., London. R. and W. Davidson, London. 325 cattle, or 2.50 cattle and 1,000 sheep a day. 72,j cattle, or 500 cattle and 2.000 sheep a day. 7.">,000 carcasses mutton. lo5,000carcasses mutton, or 32.000quarters beef. UO.OOiicarcassJs mutton, or 42,OOUquarters beef. I S. V. Nevanas and Coy., London. Pastoral Finance As- sociation, London. Yuills Ltd., London. In all ciwes the capacity is that supplied from official sources. 49 List of the Principal Firms or Companies engaged in the Meat Export Trade FROM Australia — cuntlnueil. Name ol Firm or State or States in which Biisines-s iq carried on. Nature of Business carried on. Capacity of Works.* Distributing Company. Agencies. IlD \^UfX a. a ^.y\A \JM-*.a Killing. Storage. Riverina Meat Coy. New South Wales Slaughter and freeze at 1,500 sheep or 40,000 carcasses own works. 2,000 lambs a day. mutton. RiverstonR Meat Coy. New South Wales Slaughter at own works. 180 cattle and B. Richard.s and and freeze at others ; 4,000 sheep Sons, London. slaughter and sell car- a day. casses. Rosewarne Queens- Queensland Buy dead meat and can 150 cattle a land Ltd. at own works. day. Sims. Cooper, and Victoria Slaughter and freeze at 4,000 sheep or 77,500 carcasses 1 Coy. own works, and at other works. lambs a day. lamb. ' London Produce South' Anstralia, . . Slaughter and freeze at Government Produce Depot. Coy., London. Speakman, H. J., and Victoria Slaughter and freeze at Coy. other works. Sydney Meat Pre- New South Wales Slaughter and can at own H,(lOU cattle Sydney Meat Preserv- serving Coy. works ; slaughter and sell carcasses. and 310,000 sheep a year. ing Coy., Loudon. TorrenF Creek Meat Queensland Slaughter and can at own 100 cattle a Export Coy. works. day. Union i Meat Coy. of New South Wales Slaughter and can at own Australia. works. Walker, F. J., and New South Wales Slaughter and freeze at .•• -1 Coy other works ; buy dead and canned meat. F. J. Walker and 1 Coy., London. Victoria Buy dead and canned ... ... meat. Queensland Buy dead and canned ... •>• meat. Wilcox, G., and Coy. South Australia... Slaughter and freeze at Government Produce Depot. Wimmera Inland Victoria Slaughter and freeze at 2,600 lambs a .S5,000 carcasses Freezing Coy. own works. day. lamb. Tuill.iG. S., andCoy. New South Wales Buy dead and canned ... Yuills Ltd., London. meat. i 1 * In all cases the capacity is that supplied from official sources. APPENDIX E. IN THE MATTER OF A ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE MEAT EXPORT TRADE, AUSTRALIA. 1, Arthur Sims, of Christchurch, in the Dominion of New Zealand, Merchant, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows : — (1) The firm of Sims, Cooper, and Coy., Merchants, is a partnership, Arthur Ernest Cooper and myself being the sole partners. ( 2) I was advised here that " sole partners " is a technical phrase, meaning that our business is owned entirely by Mr. Cooper and myself, that all the capital in the ccmcern is our own, and that we are an entirely independent firm, operating on our own account. At any rate, it was in this sense that I used the phrase "sole partners" in my letter of the 2nd day of July, 1914. (8) My firm has no connexion, either direct or indirect, with any other firrus whatsoevei', English or American. I am bringing in " English firms " as well, because we do not cure to associate ourselves with what we think the unreasoaable attacks made on this American market in many quarters. We ourselves are attaching a lot o* importance to this market, for meat, wool, and pelts in particular, and it would be absurd for us to go about decrying the very people with whom we are anxious, at all times, to do business, if the same is satisfactory. (4) As far as our London agents. The London Produce Company, are concerned, the shareholders in that company are W. Whittingham, — Whatton, Mrs. A. E. Cooper, and Mrs. A. Sims. None of these shareholders represent, directly or indirectly, any American or English meat interests. The 4689 G 50 Loiidou Produce Company is a company independent absolutely of any outside party. It owns no stalls, depots, or retail shops ; but it sells to firms who have these means of distribution, or to speculators. So far, it has sold little or no meat to the European Continent, or any of the smaller places of the world where, I understand, other people have done business. They have, however, sold a limited amount of meat to New York, but have apparently not been able to get in touch with purchasers for the western side of North America. We have asked them to keep a keen eye on the American tiade in wool and meat, in view of the increased demand that will probably ensue from that country for both these products through recent changes in the American Tarifi:. (5) In other words, The London Produce Company's business and method of distribution are on exactly the same lines as, we assume, are followed by other meat Ijrokers in London. And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, anil iiy virtue of the provisions of The Statu tor ij Deduratwns Act 1835. Declared at Christchurch, in the Dominion of New Zealand, the 25th day of July, 191 4. A. SIMS. Before me, F. WILDING, Notary Public. Ml U I OvJ I UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. REPORT (WITH APPENDICES) OF TIIK ROYAL COMMISSION (Mr. JUSTICE STREET; ON TllK EAT EXPORT TRADE OF AUSTRALIA. Presented to Parlidment bv Command of His IDajestv. AjjrJl, 1915. LONDON: .I'UirsTJ':!) UNDEU TITE AUTilOEITY OF HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE Hv l)ARLIN(i AND SON, Ltd., Bacon Street, E. To be purt'liased, eitlier directly or thi-ougli ;iny Bookseller, Irom WYMAN AND SONS, Limitkd, 20, Bbkams Buildings, Fettkii Lane, lO.C, 28, AiuNonoN S'I'Rkkt, S.W., and M, St. Mary Street, C'ardikk; or ll.M. STATIONERY OFFKJE (SCOTTISH BraNcu), 2;^), Fokth Street, Edinbukgh : or E. i'ONSONBY, Limited, lU'i, (Jhafton Street, Dublin; or I'roiii tlie Agencies in the British Colonien and Dependencies, llio United Statea ol' America and other Foreign Countries of T. FISHER UN WIN, LoNDuN, W.C. [('(1. 7N'.)(;.] I'ricc 5^d. 1915.