Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria
Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria
Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1401<br />
47±25. How many pounds do they weigh ?-They would weigh between eleven and twelve ponnds. CJJarlosFmutun,<br />
':rh e l l uty upon sue l 1 a mgar . won ll c range up t o "'-). 1 ~s. upon th e 1mport • pnce • o f :.os. ~- ; natura Jl y sue l 1 11n artw . l e 26tn COllimued Aprl!!S83.<br />
is entirely shut out, r admit.<br />
47426. By llfr. Zox.-How many pounds woultl that weigh ?-Eleven or twelve. At the average<br />
price <strong>of</strong> cigars such as the public would buy, say at 3d. each, importell cigms; such a cigar woulll cost to bout<br />
75s. laid down.<br />
47427. By tl1e Chairman.-How much would 1,000 <strong>of</strong> those weigh ?-About the same as the others.<br />
This would give you an idea <strong>of</strong> the proportion <strong>of</strong> duty upon the ordinary value.<br />
47±28. What do you suggest in relation to this article ?-I only suggest to reduce the duty from 6s.<br />
to 5s.<br />
47429. Leaving everything else as it is ?-Yes, assuming that my suggestion is received to reduce<br />
the lluty to sixpence upon the leaf instead <strong>of</strong> a shilling to manufacturers, and leave everything as it is. But<br />
another view that struek me may be very useful to the Commission to consider. That is the American<br />
svstem.<br />
• 47430. What is that ?-The Ameriean system does not pay by weight. The American system pays<br />
by the hundred or by the thousand. Each box has the revenue stamp right round it. If it is a fifty box,<br />
which is naturally half the amount <strong>of</strong> a hundred, and this revenue stamp is obliteratetl either upon the<br />
article going iu.to home cousttmption or being exported, the machinery <strong>of</strong> adopting it out here may he<br />
rather ditfieult; but I believe in the States it is working very plettsantly.<br />
47±31. Where clo you see any advantage in that duty upon the number insteacl <strong>of</strong> by weight ?-The<br />
merchant may import the ordinary eigar weighing thirteen pounds per thousand. Another cigm· <strong>of</strong> the<br />
same quality only weighs eleven pounds per thousand. Both are equally marketable, and he is handicapped<br />
with the extra duty upon the one as against the other, while in ATIJerica paying by the thousand and the<br />
hundred this anomaly falls away.<br />
47432. Does it?-Yes .<br />
. 47±33. How does the question <strong>of</strong> quality and price coine in in connection with the number. If he<br />
pays so much a thousand he pays upon a thousand <strong>of</strong> poor ones just the same as upon a thousand good<br />
ones ?-I speak. <strong>of</strong> the market at the present.<br />
47±3±. You tell me that the bad ones and the good ones pay about the same?-You can onler cigars<br />
any weight.<br />
47435. That is why I asked you just now. You told me a thousand <strong>of</strong> those big cigarl:l at 25s. a<br />
thousand yvas eleven or twelve pounds. When you come to the better class <strong>of</strong> cigars worth 75s. a thousand<br />
I asked what would be weight ancl you said just about the same as the others?-Yes, the weight <strong>of</strong> a<br />
marketable article ranges between eleven and twelve ponnds a thousand; but allowing such a cigar to come<br />
in and to weigh thirteen pounds a thousaml it is not worth any more upon the market because it pays<br />
more.<br />
47,:1:36. I fail to see what advantage you get by changing the duty from number to weight so far as<br />
getting at the different qualities is concerned ?-I do not say you secure a better quality. It makes no<br />
difference upon the quality at all, but it gives a uniform tax upon cigars so much per hnndrell.<br />
47437. Is there anything else you wish to propose ?-I nncler;;tand the Commission to-day is only<br />
considering tobacco and cigars.<br />
117438. Yes ?-Tobacconists are left out. 'Were they on, I would take the liberty to mention<br />
some <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
47439. We are simply upon the one thing to-day ?-That is all.<br />
47440. By Mr. Zox.-I fail to make out any reason that you have given to the Chairman, that I<br />
can see is a feasible one for the alteration <strong>of</strong> the duty being paid upon so much per pound, or upon the way<br />
you suggest. You have not made it at all elear to my mind; can you give any other ex:phmation ?-No, I<br />
cannot give any other. I know it works very nicely. '<br />
47441. What pro<strong>of</strong> could we have that certain cigars having paid so much duty, the mome.nt they<br />
got into the retail man's store, he did not change them from one box to another?...:... You cannot put a big cignr<br />
into a little box.<br />
4744:2. Why not?-Unless you make the box 1«rger.<br />
474±3. Excuse me-why cannot you put a large cigar into lt small box if you had 1,000 cigars,<br />
whatever they weigh ?-Of course such a thing could be clone. .<br />
4744:4. W oulcl that not open the door to fraud ?·-This is to prevent it. The American system would<br />
rather prevent it than open it, because the domestic-made cigar would have a different revenue stamp from<br />
the imported one.<br />
±7 445. Your suggestion in reference to the alteration in the Tariff to a shilling a thousand, what<br />
effect do you think that would have to benefit us in any way ?-To benefit whom?<br />
47446. To benefit the colony or the eolouin.l manufacturer?--The smoker would have to pay less<br />
for his tobacco, allll small traders would have to disburse less reacly money for duties.<br />
474±7. \Vould it not be beneficial to exclude the 25s. a thousand eigars altogether from the colonv,<br />
and secure the manufacture <strong>of</strong> a colonial article that would benefit the smoker ?-To the revenue-No. •<br />
47 448. Do not you think if you paicl a lower price for a· lower article and a higher duty for a better<br />
article, would it not be more beneficial in the long run ?-Such a thing could be done to arrange a ::;lidlng<br />
scale <strong>of</strong> cluties upon the value <strong>of</strong> cigars, and it would be a most judicious step.<br />
47449. What is the highest price cigars you would import into the colony ?-In Loml or duty<br />
paid?<br />
47450. In bond ?-We have imported them as high as £50 a thousand.<br />
47451. What did they weigh ?-They weighed a little heavy. They weighed sixteen pounds a<br />
thonsand. That was £± 16s. a thousand dutv- .<br />
474fi2. What is the lowest price cigars· you import ?-We import them as low as 25s. a thousand.<br />
47453. What duty do they ptty ?-From 66s. to 7:2s.<br />
47454. Then the cigars imported into this colony by you at £50 a thousand pay to the revenue<br />
£± 16s. a thousanll, aml the cigars importecl for 25s. a thousand pay to the revenue £3 l2s. a thousaml.<br />
Do yoa look upon that as an anomaly ?-I do.<br />
TARIFF. 8:r
47455. Have you any suggestions to make for the modification <strong>of</strong> the Tariff in that respect ?-I<br />
261 ~a:;:~~;f'fss 3 • cannot make anv that can be carried out practically.<br />
47456. Can you make any suggestions to the Commission by which yon think people should be able<br />
ultimntely to export tobacco from this colony other than you have made ?-No, I cannot make such a<br />
suggestion.<br />
47457. Have we ever grown, to your knowledg·e, more tobacco in this colony than what could be<br />
used for colonial consumption ?-I believe one year showed a slight excess and the next year immediately<br />
swallowed it up.<br />
47458. To what extent was the excess ?-I am not certain. It was a few years ago. There was<br />
one very heavy crop ; but, in my experience, the production <strong>of</strong> our colonial-grown tobacco is not in excess<br />
<strong>of</strong> the demaml <strong>of</strong> the various factories.<br />
47459. Since we have grown tobacco in this colony, can you give the Commission any idea as to<br />
the fallin" <strong>of</strong>f in the American-grown tobacco imported as far as consumption is concerned ?-I had the<br />
statistics together, but I cannot find them. There has been a terrific falling <strong>of</strong>f in the imported manufac·<br />
ture since we commenced manufacturing.<br />
47±60. Cannot you give the Commission some idea ?-No. I had all the papers together-every<br />
newspaper-but I cannot Jay my hand upon them.<br />
47461. Fifty per cent. ?-Quite, aml more than thnt.<br />
47462. Seventy-five per cent. ?-I cannot say.<br />
47463. You are certnin it is more thnn fifty ?-Yes, I am certain it is more than fifty.<br />
4746±. Now, as far as colonial tobacco is concerned, are you a very large holder <strong>of</strong> it ?-Not such a<br />
large holder, ai'l we traffic in the article. We are factors.<br />
47405. Can you tell the Commission how much your trade has fallen <strong>of</strong>f as far as American tobacco.<br />
is concerned and colonial-grown tobacco ?-Our trade has not fallen <strong>of</strong>f. We rose wit.h it. We were only<br />
a small firm when first tobacco was manufactured. Our turnover was less then than it is now right through.<br />
47466. Do you agree with the evidence given yesterday by Mr. Lecldin when he said yonr firm<br />
woulcl have no objection to have all the colonial-grown tobacco marked in such a way that the general<br />
public coulll know what they were buying ?-I think it would be quite proper. And moat <strong>of</strong> the American<br />
manufacturers are alrendy putting fi distinguishing brand upon their tobaccoes so that their tobaccoes are<br />
known one from the other and, consequently, from the colonial.<br />
47407. Is that upon the boxes and upon the plug?-In the American tobaccoes it is upon the plugs,<br />
and also the people in the trade can tell by the very nature <strong>of</strong> the box-whether the public can.tell I do<br />
not know. They never see the box.<br />
47468. Is the colonial-made tobacco purely and simply colonial-grown tobacco, or is it American<br />
leaf ?-You can make it from colonial leaf alone, or you can mix it, or make it from American leaf only.<br />
47469. What is generally clone ?-The majority is colonial tobacco-some proportions are mixed<br />
and other grades are made entirely from the imported leaf.<br />
The witness 1citkdrew.<br />
CharlesFranktln,<br />
W. w. Couobe,<br />
26th Aprll1883,<br />
1402<br />
W.illiam Wilhnot Couche sworn and examined.<br />
47470. By the Clwirman.-You fire [I partner in the firm <strong>of</strong> Couche, Calder, and Company ?-Yes.<br />
47·:171. Are you an importer <strong>of</strong> tobacco and cigfirs ?-TobfiCcO only.<br />
47472. You have heanl part <strong>of</strong> the eYidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness?-Yes.<br />
47±73. Do you agree with that evidence, as far as you have heard it ?-Yes, in the main I do.<br />
47474. Are you <strong>of</strong> opinion that those alterationB in the Tariff <strong>of</strong> Gel. a pound in the various grades<br />
would be beneficial to your business ?-I do not know that it would make very much difference to<br />
om business, unless it increased the consumption. Of course any reduction <strong>of</strong> the price <strong>of</strong> imported<br />
manufactured tobacco would be to our advantage. It might reduce the consumption <strong>of</strong> colonial, but I do<br />
not know that it would.<br />
J7475. Have you any suggestions to <strong>of</strong>fer, yourself, in relation to the Tariff beyond what Mr.<br />
Kronheimer's representative has stated ?-.No, the consumption <strong>of</strong> imported manufactured tobacco is about<br />
one-third <strong>of</strong> what it was fourteen years ago.<br />
47476. That has lleen more than supplied by the colonial manufacture, has it not?-Yes ; on the<br />
other hfind, a larger amount has been imported <strong>of</strong> leaf-umnanufactureclleaf.<br />
47477. And that with the colonial-grown leaf has more than made up the deficiency in the imported<br />
tobficco ?-The colonial manufactured has driven all the lower qualities <strong>of</strong> mmmfactmecl tobacco that<br />
formerly came from the States ont <strong>of</strong> the market. It could not compete.<br />
47478. Is the price <strong>of</strong> tobficco much different to-day from what it was ten years ago ?-I do not<br />
think it is.<br />
47479. Is the little difference that there is in it higher or lower?-We sell all imported tobaccoes in<br />
bond.<br />
47 480. Taking the price in bond, is the price in bond to-dfiy <strong>of</strong> imported tobacco higher or lower<br />
than it was, say ten years ago ?-It is a very difficult question to answer without reference, but my opinion<br />
is that momatic tobaccoes, fine aromatic tollaccoes, are rather higher, ancl that black tobaccoes, what we call<br />
Cavemlish, are rather low·er.<br />
47481. Has there been any rise in price in the American market <strong>of</strong> the oue kind ?-The American<br />
market fluctnates with the crop. Last year it was very high on account <strong>of</strong> a short crop.<br />
47482. Is the reduction in the Cavendish that you speak <strong>of</strong> occasioned by competition with the local<br />
article ?-Undoubtedly; there is no doubt a great deal <strong>of</strong> colonifil manufactured tobficco is sold as<br />
imported. .<br />
47483. By whom is it so sold, do you know ?-By the retfiilers, I believe. On all the tobaccoes that<br />
come to us, nearly, they put what Mr. Franklin described as tags. Recently I· got down from the country<br />
two parcels <strong>of</strong> tags-[producing the same and handing them to tile Chairman.J-Those aTe the brands .that<br />
we import from America find are very favorite brands. Of comse those brands fire not printed for nothing,<br />
and so far as I can make out they are put upon colonial-made tobaccoes and· palmed <strong>of</strong>f upon the public as<br />
imported.
1403<br />
4748±. You say you received those parcels from the country ?-Yes. I am now endeavourin()> to<br />
trace out their origin, and if I crm secure the evidence, since onr brands are recristered in this colony, we slmll<br />
take legal proceedings; .for there is a direct fraud.<br />
"'<br />
47485. You are under the impression that those have come from America ?-No, they are made<br />
here for the purpose <strong>of</strong> putting on.<br />
47i8G. In imitation <strong>of</strong> the American tags that is what we call Cavendish that you have<br />
, in your hand.<br />
· 47487. You import tobacco that lias this brand upon it, you say ?-Yes.<br />
47488. Have you got a sample <strong>of</strong> that with you ?-I have not, I forgot to put it up. We call it<br />
Golden Eagle.<br />
47489. Could you supply the Commission with a sample ?-I could.<br />
47490. Can yon send a messenger and get a sample <strong>of</strong> this; there are two kinds here, Go !den Eagle<br />
and Victory ?-The VictoJ'Y is not an exact imitation.<br />
47491. You say the Victory label is not an exact imitation <strong>of</strong> yours ?-No, it is a different col or. I<br />
put a Victory before you und an Aromutic ; here is the original Golden Eagle, and here is the imitation<br />
[handin,q in papers.]-No one but m1 expert could tell the difference.<br />
47492. You are under the impressir.n that those are used for the purpose <strong>of</strong> putting on inferior<br />
brands <strong>of</strong> tobacco, either inferior imported brands or colonial-made brands ?-Quite so.<br />
47493. Must be used for either purpose?-Mnst be used foreither purpose; but most <strong>of</strong> the imported<br />
manufactured tobaccoes have tags upon them to begin with, consequently that coulll not so readily apply<br />
to them.<br />
47494. It is quite easy to take <strong>of</strong>f the tags and put others on ?-Not so easy; it would be a very<br />
laborious thing, and there would not be the same object in it..<br />
47495. Unless they were a poor quality imported, and they wished to palm them <strong>of</strong>f as bett.er ?<br />
Comparatively little inferior tobacco is imported now.<br />
47496. The cqlonial manufacture has driven it out?-Yes, and there is a higher duty.<br />
47497. Have you anything further to suggest beyond what Mr. Kronheimer suggested ?-I have<br />
not.<br />
47498. Would you as an importer be satisfied with that alteration if adopted ?-Yes, I think it is<br />
reasonable. I may say with regard to leaf we import leaf also. We import strips, and the question was<br />
raised here yesterday by you as to whether an export trade could not be got, and the reason why better<br />
leaf could not be produced here. I have been in Virginia and Kentucky where the bulk <strong>of</strong> tobacco is<br />
produced, and though I am practically not acquainted with the manufacture o£ tobacco, I have spoken with<br />
my constituents there, and they say the climate and soil have everything to do with the production <strong>of</strong><br />
tobacco ; that seed taken from Virginian tobacco <strong>of</strong> a fine quality such as is used for aromatics, 1md tuken<br />
to Kentucky will pwduce a very different leaf, far more stalk ; and then the tobacco cmp is very much<br />
influenced by the season. A tobacco crop wants a good deal <strong>of</strong> moisture, aud at a certain stage <strong>of</strong> its<br />
growth frosts injure it very seriously, and the great drawback to the growth <strong>of</strong> tobacco in these colonies,<br />
as far as my knowledge goes, is the uucertninly <strong>of</strong> the seasons. You have far more drought here than they<br />
have in Virginia. A drought here, if continued, means a total failure <strong>of</strong> the crops, and upon that ground<br />
I see no prospect, or very little, 6f colonial-grown tobacco ever arriving at the same perfection as the<br />
Virginian article does.<br />
47499. Unless it could be grown upon river flats, where it could be irrigated ?-No, upon river flats,<br />
in this colony, you are liable to droughts, unless you can irrigate.<br />
47500. By iflr. llfclntyre.-In regard to imported leaf, is the character <strong>of</strong> the leaf imported here as<br />
good as the leaf you suw at home ?-Yes.<br />
47501. In every respect ?-In every respect, it is a better average.<br />
47502. Is the article manufactured from the leaf here as good after it is manufactured us the<br />
imported article is ?-In manufacturing there is something besides the leaf. Every manufacturer in the<br />
States has his own particular flavouring, that they put a certain amount <strong>of</strong> some fine sugar and liquorice,<br />
what we call dressing. Everyone has his own secret, and there is something in the flavour <strong>of</strong> those that<br />
every particular smoker may like. Take the Victory, that is one <strong>of</strong> the most favorite brands that come to<br />
this market. No other Virginian manutiwturer has been able yet to hit upon the exact tlavonr though they<br />
use the same leaf.<br />
47503. Have you never come across any tobacco manufactured here yet that is a goatl as the<br />
imported, or that made from the imported leaf ?-I have never seen any.<br />
47504. Do you know the difference in the retail price ?-I do not know.<br />
47505. What is the difference in the wholesale price between the article imported and the article<br />
made here, supposed to he similar to the article imported ?-I cannot say. I never buy colonial<br />
manufactured tobacco.<br />
47506. You never buy any <strong>of</strong> the leaf tliat is only bought by manufacturers.<br />
47507. You do not sell any <strong>of</strong> the colonial manufactured ?-No, not any.<br />
47508. By lllr. Zox.-Do you consider that the inferiority is in consequence <strong>of</strong> the unsuitability <strong>of</strong><br />
our soil to grow tobacco equally good with American tobacco, or <strong>of</strong> the want <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> the secret for<br />
the component parts you put .into that, like liquorice, or other ingredients ?-I think that so far as we have<br />
seen yet, colonial climate and soil will not grow as fine a tobucco, as fine a leaf as Virginia for instance.<br />
4750H. B;IJ Mr .. 2lfuMo.-Do I understand that those labels are printed in the colony, and put upon<br />
colonial-made tobacco, and sold as imported ?-Yes, undoubtedly.<br />
47510. How long is it since you got information <strong>of</strong> those cases ?-I have known it to be done for<br />
severnl years.<br />
The difficulty is to find it out.<br />
47511. How lonl! is it since you got those labels ?-I dare say. three months.<br />
47512. And you have not been able yet to trace them ?-vVe have not.<br />
47513. Is it done in the city or the country ?~I believe it ~s done everywhere where tobacco is<br />
sold in quantity. I believe it is done in Melbourne.<br />
47514. Then you think colonial tobacco should be branded in the same way as American tobacco?<br />
-It would be a certain amount <strong>of</strong> protection to the consumer <strong>of</strong> tobacco.<br />
47515. He would F;now eJ~:actly what he was purchasing ?-Yes,<br />
W. W. Couchc,<br />
cantinued,<br />
26111 Aprill8S3.
\\... W, Conche,<br />
cont-inued,<br />
26th Aprill883,<br />
1404<br />
47510. You would make it compulsory that there Bhould be a label, so that the consumer might<br />
know ?-It would be an advantage to the importer, aml a protection to him.<br />
47517. A1:cl would it not also be an advantage to the consumer?-Decidedly.<br />
47518. He would save his money, or he would know, at all events, whether he was getting colonial<br />
or imported tobacco. I ~:uppose there is a great difference in the price ?-Of course there is, on account <strong>of</strong><br />
the high clnty upon the imported article.<br />
1'/w ~vitness withd1·ew.<br />
Alfl'ed Hart,<br />
26th April !883.<br />
Alfred Hart sworn and examined.<br />
47519. By the Chairman.-You represent Feldheim, Jacobs, and Company?.,..,Yes.<br />
47520. Your firm imports tobacco and cigars ?-Yes.<br />
47521. Yoa desire to traverse some <strong>of</strong> the evidence that has been given by previous importers?<br />
yes, because we a re also interested as cigar manufacturers.<br />
47522. Will you st~tte to the Commission the points upon which you disagree with previous<br />
witnesses ?-It hros been proposed, to-day, to reduce the import duty upon cigars by Is. a pound ; tlmt<br />
would do away with a great part <strong>of</strong> the protection that the colonial miicle has.<br />
47523. Let me remind you it was proposed, at the same time, to reduce the duty upon the imported<br />
leaf from ls. to Gd ., so you would be Bel. worse <strong>of</strong>f by that arrangement being carried out?~ Yes, even that<br />
6d. would put us in a worse position than we were in before the last alteration in the Turi£::<br />
47524. Yon do not agree with that proposal ?-No, I do not. It has been mentioned that cigars<br />
can be imported here for 25s.; as a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, you can get cigars at home at 19s., inclusive <strong>of</strong> everything-already<br />
boxed and put in the ease, 19s. a thousand; whereas here we have to employ colonial<br />
labor, and the lowest price for which we get cigars made is 25s. a thousand for the making alone ; that is<br />
the mere, labor, rolling the cigars up. \Ve have, then, the additional expense <strong>of</strong> supplying the leaf;<br />
we have to pay ::!5 per cent. duty upon the boxes, supposing we import the box, and thu.t is mostly<br />
done.<br />
4752G. They come in full <strong>of</strong> something, though, do not they ?-No, we import them as cut timber,<br />
sawn, and we c·annot dispe11Se wit.h any <strong>of</strong> the protection we have at present. That is the view I urge,<br />
In regard to the olher recommendations, the altering <strong>of</strong> the way <strong>of</strong> collecting the duty to collecting it per<br />
thousa,nd, that also would work against the interests <strong>of</strong> the colonial article, because it has been propose
1405<br />
475±9. Do yon mean to say it takes six months to send home an on1er for labels ?-Tu send home<br />
and get them out.<br />
47550. You say the colonittl printers are not equo1 to printing the labels for your cigar boxes 7-<br />
They are not ; they are not quick enough; but I do not urge the taking <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> the duty from cigar boxes.<br />
The witness wit!td1·ew.<br />
.:UhC'd Un.rt,<br />
coutinued,<br />
26th Aprill8SJ.<br />
Edgar Arton Baskerville sworn and examined.<br />
47551. By t!te a !tairrnan.-"What are you ?-Tobacconist. E.A. Bu.siwrville<br />
9 ] f 26th Allrill883,<br />
4755 ... In what way does t1e Tariff upon the article o tobacco affect yom business as a retailer <strong>of</strong><br />
tobacco ?-I think it has improved it, rather than not.<br />
47553. Improved it ?-Improved it as far as I am coucerned, and I dare say it has improved it with<br />
all the tobacconists.<br />
47554. Do not speak for anyone else. Tell ns as far as you are concerneJ ?-It has improv!ld it as<br />
:far as I am concerned.<br />
47555. Iu what respect-in the amount <strong>of</strong> business doue ?--In the amount <strong>of</strong> business cloue.<br />
Naturally before the duty there were larger stocks held by people in small w:1ys <strong>of</strong> business. Those people<br />
do not hold that stock now, and, consequently, those who do not hold the stock do not do the tratle. I<br />
understilm1 it is more difficult now to hold a stock than it was before, because, previous to the duty going<br />
on, grocers aud even.fruit shops would buy five and even ten boxes. I know that, because I have sold it<br />
to them-even the smallest men.<br />
4755G. How many do the same people buy ?-They buy two pounds now, or :five pound;;.<br />
47557. From the factories ?-No, from me.<br />
47558. I thought you were a retail tobacconist yourself?-Yes, so I am, but it throws that class <strong>of</strong><br />
business now more into my hands and more into the hands <strong>of</strong> people who hold a stock. If a man bought<br />
five boxes <strong>of</strong> tobacco previous to the duty, the only thing he hacl to do was, to give a bill <strong>of</strong> four or five<br />
months, and he got it into his place without any cash outlay, and he sold it. If he was a cheap gyoeer he<br />
sold it for immediate purposes, and raised the wind at cost price and turned it into immediate cnsh, and<br />
dealt in butter and eggs with the money. He rose the wind upon the sales something considerably, nncl it<br />
paid him in lots <strong>of</strong> cases, ancl in other cases it clid not pay him, ancl he forgot to pay for it.<br />
47559. I ditlnot ask you how the grocer dicl ?-Now, those men have to pay £4 a box dnty, they<br />
tlo not buy it. They buy ten pounds.<br />
475GO. Without going into the reasons, the fact remains, that you sell now to grocers smn,ller<br />
quantities than you sold before ?-Yes.<br />
47561. In any other way has the Tariff benefited you ?-No, I clo not know it. Of course, it<br />
takes a larger capital to work the business.<br />
475G2. That is rather against you tlmn for you ?-It is. But then you get the spontaneous trade<br />
that comes to you.<br />
47563. Is there any alteration in the Tariff you wish to propose ?-No. I may say if you take<br />
sixpence <strong>of</strong>f the imported article, it would not reduce the price to the consumer a half-penny.<br />
475G4. Will you explain to the Commission how that is?-Yes ; buying Golden Eagle, or any <strong>of</strong><br />
the first-class light aromatic tobaccoes, at the very lowest price, they will cost, d11ty paid, 5s., 2s., aud 3s.<br />
the duty, or ls. lld.-very close upon it-that costs fivepence. I sell that for sixpence.<br />
47565. What do you mean by" that costs fivepence" ?-Any <strong>of</strong> those bramls Y>'hieh are twelve to<br />
the pound, they cost fivepence per plug, and we sell them at sixpence, and we get :fifteen per eent., a less<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>it than anybody else in any other trade gets. A smaller pr<strong>of</strong>it than anyone in any other tmde gets.<br />
47566. You buy at fivepence and sell for sixpence ?-Yes, and that is buying i1~ large quantities,<br />
and buying well.<br />
47567. And if you paid fourpence half-penny, you would still charge sixpence ?-Yes.<br />
. 47568. Then the result <strong>of</strong> taking <strong>of</strong>f the Tarlff would be merely to put sixpence a pound into the<br />
pockets <strong>of</strong> the tradesmen like yourself'l-,Just so.<br />
47569. Do you deal in cigars ?-Yes.<br />
47570. Does the Tariff upon cigars suit you?-Yes; the cigars are o£ much better quality uow the<br />
excise duty is on than they were before. Before, the cigars were <strong>of</strong> inferiol' quality. Tbc small<br />
manufacturers used to turn them out, and the people used to bny cigars at I used to sell them ::.t<br />
or nine shillings a box, the same price as I now ~ell at, though I buy at £4. The cheapest article I can<br />
now huy-tl1e £4 a thousand-I sell that article for nine shillings a box, and when I gave £2 for them, I<br />
sold them at uine shillings a box, and if the i.luty was takeu <strong>of</strong>f cigars it would not benefit anybody but the<br />
retailer.<br />
47571. By llfr. Jrlcintyre.-Then the whole benefit your business has receivetl from the Tariff has<br />
been that it has squelched the small dealers ?-It has tlirown the trade into the proper legitimate channel.<br />
Why should the gt·ocers--<br />
47572. We do not inquire into that. Personally I do not see why a milkman should not sell a cigar<br />
instead <strong>of</strong> you, but I only want your evidence ?-It throws the business into the hands <strong>of</strong> holders or a<br />
la1·ger stock.<br />
·17573. Then you think the business <strong>of</strong> the colony shcmld be only done by a few?-No.<br />
47574. Then what do you mean by that statement ?-I know that, so far as tobacco and cig·ars go,<br />
the larger they are the better the article.<br />
47575. Does that ?,pply to the retnil business ?-We have a certain fixed price. A man comes in<br />
and asks for a twopenny or threepenny cig:1r. Now, if I buy an a::-ticle for £2 that will smoke, I can sell<br />
that for twopence, or someone else will if I cannot. But if I pay £4 for an article, I must still sell it for<br />
twopence. It is not goocl to get threepence, for I maintain that the cigars now in :Melbourne are<br />
<strong>of</strong> much better quality than they vvore before.<br />
47576. Do you attribute that t.o the dnty?-Yes.<br />
47577. vVhy ?-The small makers use the lowest quality <strong>of</strong> leaf entirely.<br />
47578. You do not know that-you me not a maker ?-I have been acquainted with the trade very<br />
intimately. I bought cigars for £2 before the duty, nncl the man I bought from then is now manager for
E. A.Baskerville, Feldheim, J acobs, and that man is now gctt.iug twice or three times the wages he used to ma,ke when he<br />
corJtinued,<br />
26th Ap,·nJssa. was a master man.<br />
47579. Did you travel for any firm ?-I did for Heinecke and Fox.<br />
47 580. Then you know all about the secrets <strong>of</strong> their class <strong>of</strong> stuff ?-No.<br />
47581. You do not; then why do you speak about the small manufacturers producing an inferior<br />
article ?-Cannot I tell when I smoke it. If you had bad butter upon the t.able you would know it in a<br />
moment.<br />
47582. Have not you sold bad articles ?-No.<br />
47583. Never?-Ifi have sold them, I have solcl them to hawkers, or jobbed them <strong>of</strong>f. I only sold<br />
them for what they were.<br />
47584. What do you call those things in the trade ?-Tags.<br />
47585. Have you ever used any <strong>of</strong> them ?-No; I have my own with my own 11ame on.<br />
4758G. Do you wish to convey to the Commission that it is the custom <strong>of</strong> those not so large in the<br />
trade as you to use things <strong>of</strong> this kind ?-No, I do not think it is done. .<br />
47587. Then why do you put forward your evidence to prove that the benefit <strong>of</strong> the Tariff has been<br />
solely by destroying the small class <strong>of</strong> traders in the country ?-At the present time there are perhaps<br />
2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 boxes <strong>of</strong> tobacco held in Melbourne by the different dealers. Previous to the duty<br />
there was three times that quantity held. They do not buy the same quantity that they did befo1·e.<br />
47588. You said that all before. The simple evidence you wish to convey to the Commission is this,<br />
as I understand it, that the Tariff has had the effect <strong>of</strong> putting the poorer men out <strong>of</strong> the business ?-No,<br />
certainly not.<br />
, 47589. Then what is it ?-Why should it.put him out <strong>of</strong> the business?<br />
47590. Is it better for the poor men ?-A man without capital certainly cannot compete with a man<br />
with capital, and he never could and never will-everybody knows that.<br />
4759 L By the Hon. Mr. Lorimer.-You say your business now is better than before the increase<br />
<strong>of</strong> duty?-Yes.<br />
47592. How much more tobacco are you putting out in the year ?-I could not tell that.<br />
47593. Are you sure you are pnttiug out more?-Yes, I am sme I am doing better. I am making<br />
more pr<strong>of</strong>it than I made before.<br />
47594. But are you selHng a larger quantity <strong>of</strong> material-tobacco ?-No, I am not selling· a lnrger<br />
quantity in this way. I used to do a five and ten-box trade. After I gave up travelling for Heinecke and Fox<br />
I con tinned the b11siness myself, and I used to do perhaps £±00 a month, credit business, all round the town<br />
with sellers and others, and as soon ftS tl1e duty went on I had not su:Hicient capital, or the pr<strong>of</strong>it was not<br />
su:Hiciently good to enable me to give credit upon both capital and duty, and those small men cannot pay<br />
cash, so I had to give up tbat branch.<br />
47595. Then your business has not increased in quantity ?-No, I am taking about half the money<br />
I took, but I make better results from it.<br />
47fi96. I thought you said you were making a smaller pr<strong>of</strong>it upon a plug than you got before?<br />
Yes, but then I do a much larger retail trade, and the difference between the wholesale pr<strong>of</strong>it and the first<br />
retail pr<strong>of</strong>it is very great.<br />
47597. Was not your business increasing before the increased duty was put on ?-No.<br />
47598. It was not ?-When the duty went on, everybody in Melbourne, and the manufacturers, bad<br />
an enormous stock <strong>of</strong> tobacco on hand.<br />
47599. Then it made tobacco clearer to you, I suppose ?-It lms made tobacco clearer to me by a<br />
shilling a pound, and it has made it clear to the public by about sixpence to eightpence UlJOll the largest<br />
sizes <strong>of</strong> cheap tobacco.<br />
47 600. You think, then, it is better for the consumers <strong>of</strong> tobacco to have it dear than to have it cheap,<br />
and is it better for the dealers ?-Better for the retailer?<br />
47601. Yes, and for the public ?-It is better for the public to have the article cheap, but you must<br />
nmlerstand if the shilling duty was taken <strong>of</strong>f we should not reduce that shilling.<br />
47602. You might not, but somecne else might ?-We do not get any advance upon cigars now.<br />
W c retail cigars at the same price as we did before. Tobacco is sixpence an ounce now, and it was sixpence<br />
an ounce before.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
MontngueLevy,<br />
26tll AprlJJsss.<br />
1406<br />
Montague Levy swom and examined.<br />
47603. By the Chairman.-What firm do you represent ?-.Myself.<br />
47604. Where is your place <strong>of</strong> business ?-No. 1 Collins street.<br />
47605. Your business is a retail tobacconist's ?-Yes.<br />
47606. How does the duty upon tobacco ana cigars affect yom business as a tobacconist ?-Prejudicially.<br />
47607. Will you explain to the Commission in what way?-Yes, firstly I propose that it be reduced,<br />
imported tobacco to 2s., imported leaf to be admitted free, and t.he excise dnty to remain as it is.<br />
47608. That is not an answer to my qnestion. You saicl that the Tariff affected your business as a<br />
retailer prejudicially ?-Yes..<br />
47609. I ask you to explain to the Commission how it does that. We will come afterwards to the<br />
question <strong>of</strong> alteration ?-On account <strong>of</strong> the high duty.<br />
47610. Dcesit make people buy less tobacco, then ?-Yes.<br />
47611. Do you wish the Commission to understand that your business has been reduced since the<br />
imposition <strong>of</strong> this additional shilling duty?-Yes. .<br />
47612. You are doing less business than you were before?-Yes.<br />
47613. Do you wish the Commission to understand that that is due to t.hese duties and not due to<br />
tlJe subdivision <strong>of</strong> the trade amongst"' larger number <strong>of</strong> shops ?-No.<br />
47614. Y cu donotwisb us to understand that ?-I vvishyou to unclerstunclthat; I speak now as a retailer,<br />
dealing exclusively in imported tobaccoes ; I do not sell any colorri!Ll tobaccoes. I found that after the last<br />
shilling was imposed that lots <strong>of</strong> working meu would not pay the additional price, or could not, and they
1407<br />
told me thttt they preferred leaving <strong>of</strong>f smoking to smoking an inferior article, consequently my business l\foutogue Levy,<br />
continu.ed~<br />
has decreased.<br />
26th April1883.<br />
47G15. The result <strong>of</strong> the duty was, then, to lessen your business through forcing people to give up<br />
smoking?-Yes.<br />
47616. Now tts to the proposal that you have to mtLke to get your trade back again ?-li'irstly, I<br />
think if importell tobacco were reduced to 2s. instead <strong>of</strong> 3s. it would form a basis <strong>of</strong> what all politicians<br />
wish to see, that H would lead, perhaps, to intercolouial free-trade.<br />
47617. We are not politicians here-never mind them ?-It would be a great introduction to intercolonial<br />
free-trade. We are shut out altogether from the Ri verina trade.<br />
47618. Do you do an export trade ?-I used to, so called, export.<br />
4761£1. What was that ?-That people coming down from Rivcrina used to take their supplies from<br />
Melbourne, instead <strong>of</strong> which we are a shilling dcarer here, and they bring their supplies to Melbourne; pt'ivate<br />
gentlemen, squatters, and so forth, want to take one or two boxes <strong>of</strong> cigars away with them. They cannot<br />
buy sufficient quantities for private use for us to ship in bond. I am what they call a middleman between<br />
the wholesale dealer and the consumer.<br />
47620. Then your proposal is to go back to the old dnties ?-Yes, :mcl I will tell you why. I have<br />
been now in the retail business over two years, and before that, I represented one <strong>of</strong> the largest firms here<br />
for ten years HS a commercial trnveller, local and intercolonial, and I find that the public do not reap the<br />
benefit <strong>of</strong> these low priced tobaccoes, and I will explain to you how. Y on had evidence given to you<br />
yesterday th11t the colonial mmmfacturecl tobacco is sold for Is .. 4tl. I HID speaking now <strong>of</strong> before the<br />
duties, because the excise duty does not affect us if it. is mised correspondingly retail. It was sold for<br />
Is. 4d. and the highest manufactured from imported leaf was sold l1t 3s., and you also elicited that about<br />
two-thirds <strong>of</strong> the cheap tobacco was sold to one-third <strong>of</strong> the better class; bnt you did not elicit that they<br />
make seveml betweeu grades <strong>of</strong> which they sell almost nothing, because, I can speak from experience, a<br />
man buys ten boxes <strong>of</strong> ls. 4d. tobacco; he used to buy a size going four to the pound, that he could retail<br />
for 6d.; he would buy a size, six to the pound, that he could ret!til for 6d. and even 7d., and !LS high tts<br />
eight to the pound, all the same quality tobacco, which varied in price retail from 2s. to 3s. 6d. and 4s.<br />
47621. And paid the same price for it ?-Yes, I speak facts now.<br />
47622. Must not the public be very ignorant to buy an m·ticle that way ?-It is a very blind article<br />
till you lmve smoked it; you cannot tell by appearance, and I have samples here to prove my words.<br />
47623. Was not that sort <strong>of</strong> thing done with the imported tobacco before the colonial was made ?-<br />
No.<br />
47624. Wet·c the pnblic better judges <strong>of</strong> the imported tobacco then ?-There was not the line for<br />
the imposition. They could buy best imported tobaccoes. which never varied, marketable articles, more<br />
than ls. to ls. 6d., and they httcl to pay duty 11pon that. 'fhc highest priced retail tobacco used to be 5s.,<br />
and there was !lot the room.<br />
47625. But could not they have different sized cakes, four and six and eight to the pound and sell<br />
all at the same price ?-No, they could not sell at a lower price on account <strong>of</strong> the duty upon imported<br />
tobacco, and they could not get the higher price, pmchasers knowing they conld"get the best for 5s. ; ancl<br />
another thing, I do not think it would interfere wi.th colonial-m
1\Iontag.ue Levy, on a label, what they eaU a tag, and on their best colonial manufactured as they were termed, upon their<br />
26 t~ 0 f~;ftefsss. crack O'oods, yesterday here, they are also putting a label, but they are not distinguishable enough, they are<br />
merelyb tin tags, and the public as long as they see the tin tags do not look into it. It is very umlis-,<br />
tin(J'uislmble : it should be more decided umler Act <strong>of</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
"' 47636. You suggest that colonial manufacturers should be compelled to put on n brand that the<br />
public could know it by ?-Just so.<br />
47637. So that the public could get a cheaper article at a cheaper rate ?-Yes, just so.<br />
47638. And not be imposed upon by being charged t)le imported article rate for ihe colonial article ?<br />
-Yes ; and if the dut.y were reduced a shilling a pound, or even 6d. a pound, Mr. Baskerville's argument<br />
falls to the grouurl. because, as regards the consumer not being benefited, tobacco comes out made in plugs<br />
to suit the duty. Before the imposition <strong>of</strong> this extra shilling, tobaccoes were ret;cilecl ten and five to the<br />
pound for 6d. and n shilling. After the imposition they came out six and twelve to the pouml. If it were<br />
reduced 6d. they would come out eleven and five and a-half to the pound, so that the public would reap<br />
the benefit.<br />
47639. They get a little more weight or a little less weight ?-According to the duty. As regards<br />
the labelling, it is ~arriecl on to a very large extent here. I could mention shops in town where it has been<br />
done-I Llo not know if it is clone now-and I have seen 1t clone myself in the country. The only suggestion<br />
I hllve to make is, that the Customs department, as they protect the hotelkeepers and the public by sending<br />
round inspectors, so they should protect us, by sending inspectors from the. Excise department.<br />
47640. Let the Excise <strong>of</strong>ficers inspect?-Yes.<br />
476-!1. Have you anything further to add ?-Not upon tobacco.<br />
47642. Have you upon cigars ?-Yes. The cigarmakers were examined yestercla.y, and they all<br />
aO'ree that the one shilling extra duty lk'ls not benefited them, because it was put also upon the imported leaf;<br />
c~nseqnently they have only the mme amount <strong>of</strong> protection as they had before, and not one <strong>of</strong> t.hem admitted<br />
that they use any colonhtlleaf; they all denied 11sing it, as it was unfit for consumption or for manufacturing<br />
cigars; consequently the growers do not rec10ive any benefit from the protective duty; and I think if<br />
imported leaf were admitted free ancl the excise <strong>of</strong> a shilling a pound still collected upon the cigars, they<br />
would not then have to pay duty upon the stalks that they complain <strong>of</strong>, and cigars would be manufactured<br />
with leaf admitted free.<br />
47643. They Llo not pny upon the stalks now. The cigars are stemmed first ?-If the leaf were<br />
admitted free and cigars admittell at 5s. a p01md, as before, it would not interfere with them, nncl tile public<br />
would get the benefit, and it would not seriously interfere with the revenue because the colonialmanufncturers,<br />
I may tell you, are now unable to cope 11;ith the demaml. .<br />
47644. Cannot supply all the orders ?-They cannot, and I am at liberty to instance the name <strong>of</strong> a<br />
gentleman in the trade who has not been summoned here who wanted to give a branch <strong>of</strong> the trade his<br />
special attention.<br />
476-!5. Do not give any hearsay evidence please~you do not buy colonial tobacco at n.ll ?-I buy<br />
colonial cigars, and I find a Jifficnlty even in the few I use, to get my orders executed. Of course you<br />
could forestall that by ordering in advance, but a man who does a regular business cannot replace by<br />
orders within a reasonable time.<br />
47GJG. Anything further to add ?-Yes, that a licence <strong>of</strong> £25 or a bond fide licence, I do not sn.y<br />
the amount-I suggest that-be placed upon tobacconists instead <strong>of</strong> the foolish registration duty now <strong>of</strong> 5s.,<br />
which I fail to see the use <strong>of</strong>. vV e are licensed now for 5s. a year.<br />
47647. Yon recommend they should be licensed the same as publicans ?-Yes, to a certain extent,<br />
and I will tell you why, that dealing largely in an article on which there is excise lhity and import duty, I<br />
think it shoulcl be in the hands <strong>of</strong> reputed respectable people, and it would tend to raise the tone <strong>of</strong> the trade<br />
and preYent a great deal <strong>of</strong> smuggling going on, because all those Chinese cigars that were smuggled recently<br />
found their way into the hands <strong>of</strong> very small people, and the moment they came to the legitimate trade the<br />
whole affair was exposed, and, <strong>of</strong> course, we are placed at a disadvantage in that way.<br />
47 6-!8. Anything fnrther ?-No.<br />
47649. Bp A11·. Zox.-Do you think that the mere fact <strong>of</strong> raising the registration fee from 5s. to<br />
£25 would have the Llesired effect <strong>of</strong> placing the business in the hands <strong>of</strong> respectable men ?-I llo.<br />
47650. Why ?-There is no system that would be introduced that would not be abused. I know<br />
that very well ; but anyone is at liberty now to buy half a dozen oranges and half <strong>of</strong> fifty cignrs and 5s,<br />
worth <strong>of</strong> tobacco and they can open a tobacconist's shop.<br />
47():)1. Why should they be debarred from trading as long as they carry on their business respectably<br />
?-I do not think they would be debarred; but it would debar many grocers from meddling in that<br />
line ancl making it a cutting line in which we are engaged, and have to make a Teady money outlay ; and<br />
even the small men would reap the benefit, as I admit it. would be unfair to tax a small man as much as a<br />
large man. If it could be armnged upon a sliding scale according to the rental paid it would be better.<br />
47652. In point <strong>of</strong> fact, you think it should be a monopoly to men who could pay a certain amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> money ?-Just the same as .licensed victunllers are licensed.<br />
47653. Is there any difficulty for an expert to detect between American manufactured tobacco and<br />
colonial manufactnred tobacco ?-Yes, there is a difficulty.<br />
47654. What is the difference ? - There is a great difference between the average colonial<br />
article and the imported in quality.<br />
47G55. I asked, would there be any difficulty for experts in judging between American tobaccoes?<br />
Any ordinary man smoking it could tell the difference, but even an expert might be deceived by the<br />
eye.<br />
47656. Then you desire an <strong>of</strong>ficer to be appointed under the Act to distinguish between the two<br />
tobaccoes ?-Yes; I will tell you how it would work. An inspector comes into my shop and says," Is<br />
this Two Seas?" ''Yes." " .. Where did you buy it?" ''I pnid duty upon it ; I could show you I paid<br />
duty upon it." Or if I bought it I could produce the invoice ; but if I have no imported tobacco in my<br />
place the <strong>of</strong>ficer could easily jLHlge that the public were being imposed upon. ·<br />
47657. What benefit would accrne from the total abolition <strong>of</strong> the duty upon importedlea.f ?-You<br />
could not consistently reduce imported tobacco without reducing the imported leaf, and I suggest that,<br />
1408
1409<br />
because the revenue would not be clecreasecl so largely, and because the shillina excise duty would be still Montague Levy,<br />
ll l b h l ' l d · d l f. ~ contitmed.<br />
eo ectec upon ot eo oma an 1mporte ea . 2ilth Aprn 1 ss 3 •<br />
47658. It was not suggested that there should be a total abolition <strong>of</strong> the duty upon the manufactured<br />
article ?-I would reduce it to 2s.<br />
47659. You go in for the entire abolition <strong>of</strong> the duty upon leaf ?-Yes.<br />
47660. Why ?-Because we have had pro<strong>of</strong> that the farmers, for whose benefit it was imposed,<br />
have not benefited by it, and the pnblic have to pay it.<br />
47661. Supposing the entire abolition <strong>of</strong> imported leaf were to be agreed upon, would it not <strong>of</strong><br />
necessity reduce the consumption <strong>of</strong> the colonial-grown article ?-I do not think so.<br />
47662. Why not ?-Because we have pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> an immense difference between the colonial-o-rown<br />
0<br />
leaf and the .American leaf.<br />
47663. Yon say the .American leaf is so far superior ?-So it is.<br />
47664. If the public are able to obtain a superior article from the .American leaf they would not<br />
have the colonial leaf?-They can produce it so much cheaper from the colonial leaf, colonial-grown is so<br />
much cheaper.<br />
47665. What is the difference between .American leaf and colonial-growu ?-I do not deal in leaf,<br />
but .American is from lOd. to l6cl. and the colonial is 6d.<br />
47666. By lJfr. Woods.-Could not a single invoice be made to cover any quantity <strong>of</strong> tobacco. I<br />
understood you to say that if your tobacco were challenged by an inspector, you would answer that by<br />
producing the invoice ?-Yes.<br />
47667. Would that necessarily apply to that tobacco ?-You would have to show the box.<br />
47668. You could show a box ?~Yes.<br />
4'7 669. Could not you show twenty boxes on the same invoice, one after the other?-You could, but<br />
you would have to show whether it was imported or colonial. The invoice would have to guide you.<br />
47670. I understood you to say even experts could not tell the difference ?-Not by sight, by<br />
smoking they could.<br />
47671. By iWr. Walker.-You said you formerly had an intercolonial trade with Riverina ?-Yes.<br />
47672. And you have lost it ?-Yes.<br />
47673. Is that owing to the difference in duty between here and New South Wales ?-Yes, I<br />
attribute it to that.<br />
47674. Cannot you ship tobacco in bond?-Yes, but I am not in the wholesale trade, and I sell to<br />
gentlemen who do not buy sufficient to ship in bond.<br />
47675. That does not shut out the wholesale traders, does it ?-No.<br />
47676 . .As to branding tobacco, I understand that to apply to boxes ?-Boxes and tobacco too.<br />
47677. But the public never see the boxes ?-No.<br />
47678. It would be no protection to them to brand boxes ?-No.<br />
47679. W onld yon recommend every plug <strong>of</strong> tobacco to be branded?-Yes.<br />
47680. Wherever it is from ?-Yes.<br />
47681. You do not mean only to brand colonial tobacco ?-We cannot <strong>of</strong> course compel .Americans<br />
to do it.<br />
47682. Yes you can ?-They do it for their own protection.<br />
47683. Is all Americau tobacco branded upon the plug ?-No.<br />
47684. Then if the law were altered to compel their tobacco to be branded upon the plug, would<br />
not that be a protection to the public to see what they were buying?-Yes.<br />
47685 . .And do away to a great extent with the necessity for inspection that you speak <strong>of</strong> ?-Yes.<br />
47686. With regard to the reduction <strong>of</strong> cluty-'-would not your views be met, and your idea be met,<br />
if the excise duty were to be increased, and leave the duty as it is upon imported tobacco ?-No.<br />
47687. Why ?-Because the imported tobacco is out <strong>of</strong> the running in consequence <strong>of</strong> the price.<br />
47688. Ou acc:unt <strong>of</strong> the high price ?-On account <strong>of</strong> the hi~h price.<br />
47689 . .And your experience is that the duties do increase the price <strong>of</strong> the article ?-:Most decidedly.<br />
47690. Some people think they do not. You say you buy colonial cigars, and sell them again, <strong>of</strong><br />
course ?-Yes.<br />
47691. Do you mean by that, cigars made here out <strong>of</strong> imported leaf ?-Yes, supposed to be. I<br />
have a sample-I believe they are.<br />
47692 . .Are they made out <strong>of</strong> imported leaf ?-I believe they are.<br />
47693. Wholly ?-I pay a price to warrant their being so.<br />
47694 . .Are you aware that the quantity <strong>of</strong> imported leaf has fallen <strong>of</strong>f tremendously in the last<br />
two or three years ?-No, I am not.<br />
~" 76H5. The quantity <strong>of</strong> leaf imported the last two years, that we have any record <strong>of</strong>, is about half<br />
what it was previously-how do you account for that ?-By the consumption <strong>of</strong> colonial tobacco.<br />
47696. Does it go into consumption as colonial tobacco ?-I do not know that I can account for it<br />
any other way, as it cannot be exported.<br />
47697. You sell those cigars as made <strong>of</strong> imported leaf?-Yes.<br />
4i698. You do not know that it is ?-No; I just use them for the cheap cigar tmde.<br />
47699. By tlte .Hon. Mr. Lorimer.-Have your sales <strong>of</strong> cigars been diminished by the higher price?<br />
-Yes, through the loss <strong>of</strong> my Riverina trade. ·<br />
47700. Do you find the consumption <strong>of</strong> cigars in any way affected by the higher duty ?-No ; but<br />
it reduced our pr<strong>of</strong>its considerably in certain brands the public will have, and we lose an additional shilling<br />
per pound. We must sell Manilla cigars for 3d., and a first-class Havannah cigar for 6d., brands tlmt you<br />
cannot get under a certain price, and the additional ls. per pound comes out <strong>of</strong> the retailer's pr<strong>of</strong>its.<br />
47701. And you consider that the knocking <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> the shilling duty upon the imported leaf would<br />
be an equivalent to the reduction <strong>of</strong> the import duty from 6s. to 5s. ?-7 es. ·<br />
47702 .. Would it not be more than an equivalent ?-I believe it would, a little more.<br />
47703. Do not you consider that it would be an encouragement to the manufacturer <strong>of</strong> colonial<br />
cigars ?-I do.<br />
Tlte witness withdrew.<br />
TARIFF.<br />
8Q
G. Da.mman,<br />
26th Aprill883.<br />
l410<br />
Gustave Damman sworn and examined.<br />
47704. By the Clwirman.-You area retail tobacconist?-! am.<br />
47705. Where is your place <strong>of</strong> business ?-Corner <strong>of</strong> Collius and Swanston streets.<br />
47706. I11 what particular do you wish to supplement the evidence given by previous witnesses ?<br />
With respect to the duties upon tobacco and cigars.<br />
· 47707. Do you agree with the evidence that has been given ?-I cannot entirely agree with some<br />
evidence given.<br />
47708. On which p·:rint do you disagree ?-As a retailer in tobacco I do not think my trade has<br />
suffered very much, but I wish to point out that I consider the present tariff acts unfairly to the country ;<br />
it protects the American tobacco and protects the colonial tobacco out <strong>of</strong> the market in my opinion.<br />
47709. That is a matter for the manufacturers themselves. I ask you to give evidence as a retailer ;<br />
you say, as a retailer, the tariff has not injured your business ?-No, not as a retailer.<br />
47710. You are not a manufacturer, are you ?-I am not.<br />
47711. It is for the manufacturers to speak about that aspect <strong>of</strong> the case you refer to ?-I wish to<br />
express my opinion about this.<br />
47712. I do not want opinions, I want any facts you have got to give me in relation to your own<br />
business ?-I have nothing to say in respect to the alterations.<br />
47713. You agree with things as they are, as a retailer ?-Yes, only with respect to cigars we are<br />
more interested. Before any cigars were manufactured in this colony we could sell parcels to hotelkeepers<br />
and to grocers and different others, but since then the colonial manufacturers have taken it out <strong>of</strong> our hands<br />
and deprived the legitimate trade, who pay heavy rates and taxes, <strong>of</strong> their legitimate business.<br />
47714. Have you anything further to add ?-I think it is a folly and a crime to force the people<br />
to work on imported materials. I propose that the duty be reduced to 5s.<br />
47715. You agree with the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness then ?-And on imported leaf, say<br />
2s. 6d., and then colonial leaf free, and no excise, that would do away with the locker and licence.<br />
47716. That has nothing to do with you-the locker and the licence-you are not a manufacturer,<br />
are you ?-I speak more for the benefit <strong>of</strong> the country than myself.<br />
47717. We are now only taking the evidence <strong>of</strong> retailers on the retail trade. As I understand you<br />
it has not affected you as a retailer at all ?-It has in cigars-it has taken the trade out <strong>of</strong> our hands.<br />
47718. That was a sort <strong>of</strong> wholesale trade, you used to supply shops ?-That was a sort <strong>of</strong> counter<br />
trade, you can hardly call it retail trade. ' ·<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
H. L. Raecke sworn and examined.<br />
rr. L. Raecke, 47719. By tlte Chairman.-Where is your place <strong>of</strong> business ?-97 Swanston-street.<br />
26 th:Aprili883. 47720. You are a retail tobacconist ?~I am.<br />
47721. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> previous witnesses who gave evidence as retailers ?-I have.<br />
47722. In what respect do you differ from them ?-I wish to let the board know my opinion.<br />
47723. We do not want opinions, we have the evidence <strong>of</strong> three witnesses-wherein do you differ<br />
from them ?-One goes in for 2s. 6d. duty instead <strong>of</strong> 3s., another for 2s.; I consider it ought to be 2s. to<br />
reduce the duty upon American manufactured tobaccoes.<br />
47724. You want to go back to the old duties ?-Yes, both upon tobacco and cigars.<br />
47725. You agree with Mr. Levy's evidence ?-I do agree with him and I want to back him up<br />
in it.<br />
47726. Has the increase <strong>of</strong> the duty injured your business ?-It has to a certain extent decidedly.<br />
47727. What do you mean by that "to a certain extent" -are you doing less business than you were<br />
before ?-Certainly.<br />
47728. Could you show the Commission by your books that you are doing a worse business now than<br />
it was five years before ~-I think I could.<br />
47729. You think you could ?-I think I could.<br />
47730. It cannot have gone down very much if you do not know it, if it is only a matter <strong>of</strong> thinking?<br />
-I have been in business for the last twenty-five years and in the colony over thirty, and I think I know<br />
my own business.<br />
47731. And you are not sure whether your own business is less now than it was five years ago?<br />
The sale <strong>of</strong> imported American tobacco is less now than it was before the additional duty was put on.<br />
47732. How many more tobacconists are there since the duty was put on ?-Any amount.<br />
47733. Then could not you expect to lose some part <strong>of</strong> your trade ?-But there is the increase <strong>of</strong><br />
population to be considered.<br />
47734. Not in proportion to the increase <strong>of</strong> tobacconists ?-I wish to draw your attention to the £10<br />
licence.<br />
47735. Who pays the £10 licence ?-Nobody at all. We are supposed to be licensed for 5s.; I want<br />
it made £10, Mr. Levy mentioned £25.<br />
47736. No, he said a sliding scale according to the amonnt <strong>of</strong> business people did ?..:_I think a £10<br />
licence would be desirable.<br />
47737 .. It would suit you ?-Yes.<br />
47738. About your size ?-Yes, about my size.<br />
Plw witness uJitltdrew.<br />
R. T. HB.mmond,<br />
26th AprU 1883.<br />
Henry Thomas Hammond sworn and examined.<br />
4 7739. By tile Chairman.-What are you ? -Chief inspector <strong>of</strong> distilleries and excise.<br />
47740. Have you any information to furnish the Commission with as to the way in which the<br />
increase <strong>of</strong> the duties last imposed upon tobacco and cigars have worked ?-I can show you the increase<br />
since that excise duty was imposed.<br />
47741. The increase <strong>of</strong> revenue ?-The increase <strong>of</strong> revenue.<br />
47742. What has that been ?-For the first six months the excise was only £21,000, but that was<br />
owing to the large stock the manufacturers had on hand.
1411<br />
47743. How was that divided between tobacco and cigars ?-£20,500 in<br />
cigars. But for the next twelve months the duty came to £65,000.<br />
47744. You still speak <strong>of</strong> excise only ?-All in excise.<br />
tobacco and £1,300 in H. T. Hammoml,<br />
cMtinuea.<br />
26th A:prill88~.<br />
. 47745. How was that divided ?-£62,287 for tobacco and £2,616 for cigars. For the financial year<br />
ending 30th June, or two months from now, the estimated revenue is £75,000 or an increase <strong>of</strong> £10,000<br />
over last year; and the amount already received induces me to believe that that figure will be reached. ·<br />
47746. That is an increase <strong>of</strong> £10,000 only upon last year ?-£10,000.<br />
47747 . .And the way in which the duty is being paid induces you to believe that that will be<br />
realized ?-Yes.<br />
47748. So from a revenue point <strong>of</strong> view the imposition <strong>of</strong> the excise duty has been beneficial ?-As<br />
far as the excise is concerned.<br />
47749. By JJfr. Walker.-You have lost it upon the other one ?-I say so far as excise goes.<br />
47750. By the Chairman.-Can you give the Commission any information as to the total quantity<strong>of</strong><br />
tobacco and cigars that goes into consumption-now has it increased or decreased since the duties were<br />
imposed ?-The quantity <strong>of</strong> colonial tobacco and cigars has increased.<br />
4775!. The excise shows that, but has that increase upon the colonial more than compensat€d for<br />
the decrease upon the imported ?-I can give you the figures <strong>of</strong> the imported for the last three or four years.<br />
47752. That is the weight ?-The duty, I have the different rates, so it would be -very easy to strike<br />
the weight, but I see I have the weights. ,<br />
47753. What was the total consumption <strong>of</strong> tobacco in the colony, say for three years preceding the<br />
change, and for three years since the change was made ?-The duty upon the import€d was, for 1878-79,<br />
at 2s. a pound, £61,000; and 1879-80, at the same rate, it was £49,000 ; and when the tariff was altered<br />
from 2s. to 3s., there were two amounts taken in 1880-81, at 2s. £20,000 and at 3s. £17,500. In 1881-82,<br />
at 3s., the revenue was £41,000.<br />
47754. Now can you give me what the weights were at these dates, the quantity ?-For 1877-78,<br />
613,659 lbs.; for the next year, 489,262 lbs.; for the third year at two rates, 376,125lbs.; for 1881-82,<br />
411,482lbs.; and for the first nine months <strong>of</strong> this present financial year, 353,169lbs.<br />
47755. Those are all imported?-Those are all imported.<br />
47756. So that notwithstanding the imposition <strong>of</strong> a higher duty, the import is pretty well keeping<br />
up ?-Yes, it is.<br />
47757. So that the totaJ consumption is much larger than it was before ?-Yes.<br />
47758. Then those who are under the impression that the duties have made men leave <strong>of</strong>f smoking<br />
are under a wrong impression ?-They are, the facts speak for themselves.<br />
47759. Will you give me the weights <strong>of</strong> colonial tobacco that has been used ?-I have not got the<br />
weights, I can easily get them for you, but <strong>of</strong> course it is at Is. a pound, and that is easily found. The<br />
second year, that is from the 1st <strong>of</strong> July, 1881, to the end <strong>of</strong> June, 1882, out <strong>of</strong> the 65,000 lbs. manufactured<br />
tobacco excise, 10,000 lbs. was imported. leaf.<br />
47760. That leaves 55,000 lbs. tobacco and cigars ?-Colonial grown.<br />
47761. How much did you collect upon cigars that year; let us deduct it ?-£2,600, and so in<br />
proportion for this current year.<br />
47762. Have you any further information to give the Commission ?-No, I have no information<br />
except that I think that since the duty was imposed and since manufacturers were allowed to get their<br />
condiments in free <strong>of</strong> duty, they have turned out a far better article than before the imposition <strong>of</strong> it. "<br />
47763. The quality <strong>of</strong> the coloniaJ article is improving ?-I say so.<br />
47764. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> various witnesses fo1· the modification <strong>of</strong> the licence-fee for manufacturers,<br />
how would that act ?-I think the duty is as low as it cim be.<br />
47765. What is the lowest licence-fee charged to cigar manufacturers ?-Fifty pounds.<br />
47766. Is that charged to the man or to the building?-To the man, the licensee.<br />
47767. Suppose two or three small men club together in one building, would you charge £50 each?<br />
-No, we charge the building then.<br />
47768. There is nothing to prevent small men, two or three <strong>of</strong> them, uniting and using one building<br />
and dividing it between them ?-That was what we asked them to do yvhen the .Act came in, and we asked<br />
them to go all into one large building upon the wharf, but I suppose they were all jealous <strong>of</strong> their particular<br />
trade and they refused.<br />
47769. You heard the question asked about the licence-fee to the tobacconists ?-Yes.<br />
47770. Would that be <strong>of</strong> any service to your department ?-No, it would bring no more revenue.<br />
47771. You heard about an inspector looking after tobacco, as he is supposed to do in the matter <strong>of</strong><br />
grog-how would that work ?-As to the labels?<br />
47772. Yes, to see that the public have not the colonial article forced upon them as the imported?.-<br />
Yes, I think that is a very good suggestion-! refer to the label. ·<br />
47773. Not to the inspector?-No, not to the inspector.<br />
, 47774. What is your opinion about inspection-woulcl that be feasible, could the department carry<br />
it out ?-I do not think they could distinguish between imported and colonial tobacco.<br />
47775. By Jl:lr. Jffcintyre.-Not if they smoked it ?-Yes, <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
47776. By the Hon. Mr. Lm·imer.-You say the consumption <strong>of</strong> tobacco has increased during the:<br />
last few years ?-I said, in answer to Mr. :Mirams, that the revenue upon the import had not fallen <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
47777. I see the revenue upon tobacco in 18'73 was £146,000 ?-I have not got that.<br />
47778. In 1881 the combined excise and import revenue was £133,000, that is a loss <strong>of</strong> £13,000 in<br />
the aggregate from 1873 to 1881 ?-I was only s~eaking <strong>of</strong> the dat~s I have got down here. .<br />
477'79. Have you calculated the consumptwn <strong>of</strong> the two articles, the home-made and the Imported.<br />
article ?-As I understood lVIr. Mirams' question, it was whether the quantity <strong>of</strong> importei.l tobacco had been.<br />
lessened-that was the question that I answered, not as far as the cluty was concerned, but as to the quantity.<br />
47780. You have given contrary evidence to some <strong>of</strong> your precl,ecessors who have been. examined,.<br />
that the consumption <strong>of</strong> tobacco has increased rather than diminished?-Yes.<br />
47781. The two together ?-The two together, but I meant the difference between the excise duties:<br />
<strong>of</strong> the two years. ·
n. T. J.J:ammond, 4'7782. The excise alone-but has not the imported fallen <strong>of</strong>f to a correspom1ing amount ?-I do<br />
26t~ 0 ~~~·~t1Ba3. not think it has.<br />
4'7783. Do you know if that inc.rea~e is in proportion to the increase <strong>of</strong> population ?-I ha.ve not gone<br />
into it so minutely as that.<br />
47'784. Have you the estimate <strong>of</strong> the tobacco for tins year-financial year 1883 ?-For the nine<br />
months.<br />
4'7'785. You gave us an estimate <strong>of</strong> the excise duty to 30th ,June ?-Yes.<br />
4'7786. Have you any estimate <strong>of</strong> the import?-I have not got the estimated import duty, but I can<br />
give the figures for the last nine months. ·<br />
4 '7'787. I want to compare with the last year to see the change in the import revenue. You cannot<br />
gi,·e us it ?-No, I have only got it for the nine months.<br />
4'7788. B!l111r. Walker.-Have you got the amount collected upon unmanufactured tobacco in 1880?<br />
-No.<br />
47'789. You have not that separate ?-No, I have not got it since the excise duties were imposed.<br />
The duty in 1881 was £10,000 collected upon unmanu:factured toba.cco.<br />
47790. We have that £7,726. This statement must be altogether wrong?-That may be the year<br />
from ,January to December, I speak <strong>of</strong> the financial year to the end <strong>of</strong> June.<br />
47'791. B.11 the Hon. Jlr. Lorimer.-This is the year ending 31st December ?-That is the reason<br />
then.<br />
4'7'792. By the Chcdrman.-Will you let me have those figures again. In the year 1877-78 you<br />
say the weight <strong>of</strong> tobacco imported was 613,659 lbs. ?-Yes.<br />
47793. Was duty paid upon all that, or was some <strong>of</strong> it re-exported without paying duty ?-Duty<br />
paid upon the whole <strong>of</strong> that weight at 2s. a pound.<br />
4'7794. That does not include what was imported and re-exported ?-No.<br />
4'7'795. In the year 1878-79, the quantity imported was 489,262lbs. ?-That is it, that is the quantity<br />
duty paid.<br />
4'7'796. All the figures I am using now come under that head. The year 1879-80, the quantity was<br />
376,125lbs. ?-Yes.<br />
47797. The year 1881-82 was 411,482lbs. ?-Yes, at 3s.<br />
47798. And nine months <strong>of</strong> the present year, which ends upon the 30th June next, has been<br />
353,359 lbs. ?-358,169.<br />
4'7799. The year 1881-82, you say the total amount obtained from excise was a total <strong>of</strong> £65,000?-<br />
y es, upon the manufactured article.<br />
47800. You deduct £10,000?-Duty paid for imported leaf.<br />
47801. Leav-ing £55,000 ?-Yes. .<br />
47802. You deduct £2,500 from that as the duty paid upon the cigars ?-Yes.<br />
4'7803. Leaving £52,400 paid at the rate <strong>of</strong> Is. excise upon tobacco?-Yes.<br />
47804. Multiplying that £52,400 by twenty will give us the number <strong>of</strong> pounds weight made-will<br />
it not ?-Yes.<br />
47805. That is 1,0,18,000 lbs. <strong>of</strong> it manufactured in the colony ?-Yes.<br />
4'7806. And 411,482 imported ?-Yes.<br />
4780'7. So that the consumption has increased ?-Has increas.ed.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
1412<br />
George Burrows sworn and exmuined.<br />
GeO'I'ge Bm•rows 47808. By the Chairman.-What are you?-A cigarmaker.<br />
l!tlthAprlll883, 47809. Cigar manufacturer?-No, I was a cigar manufacturer before the duty came on. The duty<br />
coming on <strong>of</strong> £50 put a stop to me.<br />
4'7810. Was it the £50 licence-fee that you are unable to pay ?-Yes, and the £2,000 surety.<br />
47811. What surety?-£2,000, or rather the two <strong>of</strong> £500, that makes £1,000.<br />
47812. Two £.500 bends ?-Yes.<br />
47813. And a licence-fee <strong>of</strong> £50 ?-Yes.<br />
47814. Then you were compelled to close your little work?-Yes.<br />
47815. How many hands were you employing before that ?-Two besides myself.<br />
47816. You are employed now in one <strong>of</strong> the factories ?-I am employed now in one <strong>of</strong> the factories,<br />
as one <strong>of</strong> the journeymen. ·<br />
47817. Are you doing any worse as a journeyman than you were doing before ?-Yes. The licence<br />
has injured me v-ery much since it has been on. I do Dot want it to be taken <strong>of</strong>f eniireiy. I want it to be<br />
on a sliding scale, or the leaf all go into bond, and take a shilliDg <strong>of</strong>f the manufactured cigars and put it<br />
upon the colonial and imported leaf, and buy the leaf out <strong>of</strong> bond, and pay the same licence as they do<br />
at home-fiv-e guineas.<br />
47818. You want to transfer the supervision <strong>of</strong> the Customs Department from the manufactory to<br />
the field where the tobacco is grown ?-Yes.<br />
47819. How are you going to do that ?-All the tobacco that is grown up-country, instead <strong>of</strong> going<br />
into the stores here, to send it into bond.<br />
47820. Suppose they evaded the Customs, and sent it somewhere else, and not into bond, how is the<br />
Customs Department to keep a supervision over every fat·m where tobacco is grown, and see that it does go<br />
into bond ?-The present system they seem to evade in regard to the stalk, and one thing and another.<br />
47821. There is no evasion about the stalk, that is done openly and purposely ; the stalk is not used,<br />
and they are not charged excise upon what they do not use ?-The only thing I can say is that the present<br />
.licence is not fair ; it is a monopoly <strong>of</strong> the trade 'into big men's hands. .<br />
47822. \>Ye can all see that, but we want to know if you small men cannot propose some feasible<br />
··plan to alter it ?-If it acts at home upon £5, it would act, we think, here.<br />
47823. That is only thinking. Why do not you small men, ~ve or ten <strong>of</strong> you, hire a large building<br />
~and divide the duty?-We could not agree to get on together.
l4:13<br />
47824. Y on did not need to agree if you took a large building, and split it into ten rooms. You George Btll'rows,<br />
could buy one licence for the building, and the Cttstoms Department would be delighted P-I think I heard 26t~ 0 ';,_~~'ft'~ss3.<br />
this afternoon that sinee the large masters have the trade in their hands, the cigars were much better, bnt if<br />
it is put into the hands <strong>of</strong> the small men agaiu they could buy the same leaf and make the same quality, but<br />
there are two masters here that want to have all the trade in their hands, that is Feldheim, J !',cobs, and<br />
another one.<br />
47825. You small men have the remedy in your own hands. You have only to club together and<br />
take a large bnilding and divide the expeme. That is the only feasible plan that has been proposed-have<br />
yon any other proposal to make ?-No, I cannot make auy other proposal better than the one I stated.<br />
47826. You propose that the leaf should go into bond ?-Yes, to pay license according to the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> cigars you make.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
SuGAR.<br />
J oseph l:
J. F. Rt~httriiJlon, 47845. Not even by Mr. Robison ?--He might say he would undertake it, but with all due respect<br />
2 6t:'.t;~fssa. to him, I shottld not like to give him the order. It would boil thirty tons at one charge. I do not think<br />
he could do it.<br />
47846. What do you wish to propose in relation to these matters ?-I do not propose anything; I<br />
only came to answer any questions you may wish to put.<br />
47847. Do I understand you to ask the Commission to reduce the duty upon all castings because<br />
<strong>of</strong> this instance iu which you will have to pay ?-We should be very glad to see it; it is a very heavy tax<br />
to come upon one order.<br />
47848. Do we understand that you, on the strength <strong>of</strong> this one instance, desire the Commission tO><br />
recommend the abolition <strong>of</strong> duty altogethe:: upon iron castings ?-I do not see that in this case it does.<br />
any good, because the orcler goes home all the same. If 50 per cent. were imposed the order would go<br />
home.<br />
47849. Your company is a limited liability company, is it not ?-No, unlimited.<br />
47850. It is a good paying company, I believe ?-Yes.<br />
47851. How much additional percen~age would it be to the pr<strong>of</strong>its <strong>of</strong> you!" directors if they did not<br />
have to pay that £2 10s. upon those castings ?-The amount I have told you-about £2,300 on that order.<br />
47852. So much more to distribute in the year's pr<strong>of</strong>its ?-Yes, it has to come out <strong>of</strong> the year's<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>its <strong>of</strong> course. We do not go on adding to the capital.<br />
47853. You would not have that out <strong>of</strong> one year's pr<strong>of</strong>its ?-Yes, because if you did not do that<br />
the refinery would keep increasing in the books.<br />
47854. But when you make an improvement in the building or plant, do not you charge that to<br />
the capital account; you do not do it out <strong>of</strong> one year's pr<strong>of</strong>its ?-That is a mere matter <strong>of</strong> book-keepingthere<br />
is only one pocket.<br />
47855. Still it is a very important matter if there is a yearly charge and yearly expenditure--?<br />
I think I can tell you that this is an extraordinary expenditure-this one item ; but the ordinary expenditure-what<br />
we call maintenance and machinery, which does come out <strong>of</strong> every year's pr<strong>of</strong>its-is £7,000<br />
per annum. It takes that every year to keep the place in order.<br />
47856. That has always to be spent in the colony ?-Yes.<br />
47857. That is paid always to labour in the colony ?-No, some <strong>of</strong> it comes from home. This <strong>of</strong><br />
course is rather a large order.<br />
47858. It will make the alteration· cost some thousands <strong>of</strong> pounds more than it would otherwise?<br />
£2,000 more.<br />
47859. And consequently lessen your pr<strong>of</strong>its every year by interest upon £2,300 ?-Yes, precisely.<br />
47860. That will not be a very large percentage out <strong>of</strong> the pr<strong>of</strong>its ?-No ; my only object in mentioning<br />
that is to show how the thing presses.<br />
47861. By Mr. Walher.-Did you make any attempts to castings made here ?-We are constantly<br />
getting castings.<br />
47862. :For this particular contract you refer to, did you ask for tenders in the colony ?-No.<br />
47863. You only assume that the difference would be so much ?-I know we pay £18 to £22 for<br />
1<br />
castings when we get them.<br />
47864. Do not you think you would get this large lot for less than a small one ?-I know that this.<br />
shipment would be £13 10s.<br />
47865. You told the Chairman that the cost here would be £18 ?-Yes.<br />
47866. But you have no knowledge <strong>of</strong> that-you only assume it from your past experience?<br />
I know what the price <strong>of</strong> castings is.<br />
47867. With regard to the loss in refining sugar, the same applies to all bonded goods. Afte:rrepacking<br />
beer and wine you do ·not pay duty upon broken bottles ?-No, the Customs gets the revenue·<br />
only upon what goes out.<br />
47868. You only get just the same advantage as other people ?~Just the same. It puts us upoTh<br />
a level.<br />
47869. By ~Mr. M2mro.~How many shareholders are there in your company ?-About 35-between:.<br />
30 and 40.<br />
47870. There is never any balance-sheet published <strong>of</strong> the Sugar Company, is there ?-It is a private,<br />
company.<br />
47871. You could not deny it, if I stated that the pr<strong>of</strong>its were about 25 per cent., would you-from,<br />
20 to 25 per cent. ?-That is a question I cannot answer. It is simply a large private firm.<br />
47872. Which makes about 20 to 25 per cent. You have said that those castings could not be made·<br />
iu the colony under from £18 to £20 a ton ?-Yes.<br />
47873. You have.also stated to Mr. ·walker that you have not made any attempt ?-No.<br />
47874. I state here that you can get those castings done at from £12 to £13 a ton ?-I am veryglad<br />
to hear it.<br />
4787 5. 1f you will advertise for those castings, and if there is a thousand tons, I will undertake to<br />
say you will get those castings done for £13 a ton, and then you would have this advantage, that you would<br />
have them made under your own supervision ?-No doubt. I am very glad to hear it. I will make<br />
inquiries.<br />
47876. I am getting castings done for £12 a ton-plain castings, and not a thousand tons <strong>of</strong> them ..<br />
Supposing this excise were taken <strong>of</strong>t' would you get the sugar any cheaper ?-That is merely a question <strong>of</strong><br />
competition with other importers.<br />
47877. That is, the proprietors would get the benefit, not the consumer ?-It would not affect the<br />
price <strong>of</strong> sugar at all.<br />
47878. If those castings were patent machinery or machinery that could not be made in the colony,<br />
1414<br />
I could have seen some force in your argument. Now, with regard to the copper, did you ever ask<br />
Robison Brothers if they could make that copper boiler ?-I have no doubt they would say they could;<br />
but I should have my own opinion.<br />
47879. They have stated in this room that they could make any copper work· in the colony ?-They<br />
undertook to raise the Austral. Ma.y I make just one remark ~~bout wharfage. The wharfage rates, I<br />
suppose a large portion <strong>of</strong> them, go to maintain those fine wharfs here. We have a private wharf at.;
1415<br />
Yarraville constructed and maintained at considerable expense. It runs out into the fair-way. It seems a ol'.F.El?ha.rdson,<br />
serious tax. We paid wharfage rates for the year 1882 upon goods landed at our private jetty £6,336, 26 J;~fi"fsss.<br />
which appears to us unequitable. It is a large contribution to the revenue, for which we receive nothing.<br />
" 47880. By the Chairman.-Y on built the wharf yourselves ?-We built the whal!f ourselves, and<br />
maintain it ourselves, and we never received a penny from any public source.<br />
47881. By Mr. Walker.-The wharfage rate is not imposed simply to keep up the wharfs?<br />
I believe that is so.<br />
47882. None else but you use your own wharf. You get the exclusive use <strong>of</strong> it ?-It is a private<br />
wharf.<br />
47883. Part <strong>of</strong> the rate goes to maintain light-houses and dredge the Bay, and so on ?-I believe so.<br />
47884. By Mr. 11.{~6nro.-The dredge works for your wharf, does it not ?-Yes, we are in the<br />
fair-way.<br />
47885. You can bring up a large vessel alongside your wharf now?-Yes, a vessel drawing about<br />
15 feet 6 inches.<br />
47886. Which you could not do some years ago ?-No ; about 14 feet .<br />
. The witness withdrew.<br />
WINE.<br />
Thomas Francis :S:yland sworn and examined.<br />
47887. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-I am a vineyard proprietor.<br />
4 7888. 1n this colony ?-In South Australia.<br />
4 7889. Y on are desirous <strong>of</strong> giving some evidence to the Commission, I believe, as to the effect the<br />
duty upon wine has upon the intercolonial trade ?-Yes, the effect the intercolonial duty has upon the wine<br />
trade.<br />
· 47890. Will you state to the Commission as briefly as you can what it is you wish to put before us, if<br />
you please ?-What I would ask is if the Commission can aid me in getting free exchange <strong>of</strong> wines<br />
between the colonies, or a differential duty.<br />
47891. Free exchange <strong>of</strong> wines the produce <strong>of</strong> the various colonies_:_between the colonies ?-Yes.<br />
4 7892. When you say a" free exchange" do you mean regardless <strong>of</strong> the quantities that either colony<br />
might send ?-Yes, I limit it to the production <strong>of</strong> each colony.<br />
47893. That is to say that <strong>Victoria</strong> might send 10,000 gallons into South Australia, and South<br />
Australia might send 50,000 into <strong>Victoria</strong>, if she chose?-Yes, quite so, or into any other colony she<br />
1416<br />
,::r. F.J!Iylarrd,<br />
not prepared for your question, but when you come to look at it I do not think the difference would be so<br />
26t~ 0 1~~~e'{s 83 , much as you imagine, because, if N e>v ~outh Wales limits it to coloniaJ productions, the <strong>of</strong>ficers at ths<br />
Murray would stop the wines unless they a, certificate that it is colonial production.<br />
47904. Then you go back to the that it might be limited to colonial productions ?-Yes.<br />
47905. Then the other difficulty smuggling comes in ?-Yes.<br />
47906 . .All I can tell you is this, that individually, and I believe I for the Commission, we<br />
should. be if we can propose some scheme by which intercolonial free-trade not only in wine but<br />
other can be brought about ; but, up to the present, I confess I have not had much light thrown<br />
upon the question, and I do not see my way clearly to it yet ?-I think it could be devised if there were<br />
some meeting <strong>of</strong> commercial men to take it into consideration. Of course there was a commercial treaty<br />
between South .Australia and <strong>Victoria</strong>. .At the first, in such a treaty, there might be an advantage on one<br />
side or the other, but that would vanish as soon as the stocks were done. Possibly for the first six months,<br />
if there were such a treaty as this between South .Australia and Vietoria, there might be a quantity <strong>of</strong> wine<br />
from India, but I doubt, after the first three mcnths, w bother <strong>Victoria</strong> would not send three hogsheads for<br />
every one she from South .Australia, for the wines are different in quality. The trade will be dormant<br />
for the next or eight months, but if the South .Australian wines were here which differed in character,<br />
they would be drunk largely, and the merchant would maintain his trade in them all the year round.<br />
47907. Is there any other point you want to bring under our notice?-The border duties is themain<br />
thing I came to upon, but there are other matters that I will not go· into at this late time <strong>of</strong> the<br />
evening, but unless some such system as I mention is carried out you will not be able to cultivate the<br />
English market, or any other market, to any great extent. If we Ciculd get the New South Wales wines<br />
here, and eentraJize them, aud prep11re them fer export, no dcubt a large business might be done in .Australian<br />
but as to their production I do not lcok so much to fgreign markets, for we are, I think, more<br />
than capable <strong>of</strong> eonsuming all the wines we produee, and beyond that, the other colonies the same, providecl<br />
free exchange was carried out between them.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
'R. Montgomery,<br />
26th Aprill883.<br />
Con.Ks.<br />
Richard Montgomery sworn and examined,<br />
47908. By tlw"Chairman.-What are you ?-Cork merchant.<br />
47909. Are you a cork cutter as well ?-No. I have one man in my employment just to do littie·<br />
jobs that come in.<br />
47910. I understand you to be desirous <strong>of</strong> putting before the Commission some information in rela,<br />
tion to this business in corks beyond what was afforded us the other afternoon, when we were inquiring into<br />
the matter, is that oo ?-That is so.<br />
47911. Will you state brieily, if you please, what you desire to ?-I may say to the Commission<br />
that I am indifferent whether the duty comes <strong>of</strong>f or stays on, because if it on, as it is at we charge<br />
our customers with the duty. So that it makes no difference to me personally; but I have been requested<br />
by some <strong>of</strong> tl1e large cork consumers, for instance in the soda-water trade, to give evidence to show that it<br />
is a great burthen to them. Mr. Rowlancls, for instanee, is about the largest cork consumer in <strong>Victoria</strong>.<br />
47912. Would it not have been much better for this evidence to come from themselves ?-I asked<br />
them to come down. Mr. Rowlands has at present gone to England.<br />
47913. I wish to point out to you that I cannot permit second-hand evidence in this case any more<br />
than in any other, as I strictly limit our evidence to the way in which it affects the person himself who gives<br />
evidence ?-I want to show that in 1881 the <strong>of</strong> corks were 200,000 lbs. weight, that was at 4d.<br />
a pound duty, and a gross <strong>of</strong> corks is as near as possible a pound weight, so th&t the import was<br />
200,000 gross.<br />
47914. That is 4cl. a gross ?-Yes, and the duty paid was<br />
47915. What is the average price <strong>of</strong> a gross <strong>of</strong> eorks corks at 14d.<br />
to fine wine corks at 7s. a g1·oss, but they all pay the same<br />
47916. Which has the eonsumption; is not there a far larger consumption in gingerbeer and<br />
lemonade corks ?-Yes, by far.<br />
47917. The value <strong>of</strong> those corks is how much a gross ?-Lemonade corks are worth about 2s. to<br />
2s. 4d. a gross.<br />
47918 . .And then you add the duty on to that ?-No, that is duty paid.<br />
47919. Without the duty, say 2s. ?-Without the duty ls. 10d. or 2s.<br />
47920. How many gross does a manufacturer use-say one like ::Yir. Rowlands ?-I do not<br />
know how many gross, lmt I know that he paid within a few pounds <strong>of</strong> £500 duty last year. But I would.<br />
wish to point out, as I said before, that it is immaterial to me whether the duty remains on or eomes <strong>of</strong>f,<br />
but it would take 100 men to manufacture the corks imported in 1881, and sinee the duty was in<br />
1872 there has never been one who has gone into the trade <strong>of</strong> cork manufacture upon a scale to supply<br />
the large consumers, because would not pay.<br />
47921. Can you tell the Commission what kind <strong>of</strong> corks the few men do cut who are employed in<br />
this business in :Melbourne ?-Principally, I believe, they cut corks for chemists.<br />
47922. That is your experience ?-Yes; and for any jobs that are wanted.<br />
47923. Do they cut bungs for brewers ?-They do a few, because the are heavier than eorks,.<br />
and, consequently, the duty is higher.<br />
47924. What is the value <strong>of</strong> bungs a pound ?-From 2s. up to 4s. 6cl. a gross-some higher.<br />
47925. But I speak about how much a pound; they would more than a pound a gross ?-<br />
there is ls. a gross duty, and they would weigh three pounds a<br />
47926. If the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f the bungs, those men who bungs would~be out <strong>of</strong> employment?<br />
-.As far as I know, I think all the men at present employed in cork.cutting would be still employed, even<br />
if the duty were <strong>of</strong>f, because it is for special work.
1417<br />
47927. You clo not call bungs special work, do you ?-I have a cork cutter, but I should need him<br />
~tU the same if the duty was <strong>of</strong>f to-monow; and I wns to show that in 1881 there was only twenty<br />
tons weight <strong>of</strong> cork wood imported, and take the half to be ten tons <strong>of</strong> what we call to be virgin<br />
c6i·k wood, used for ornamental purposes in gardens and so on, leaving ten tons <strong>of</strong> which is 10,000<br />
gross, or the work <strong>of</strong> six men. That is in 1881. The cork wood, and all the corks come to this<br />
country, are mostly from Spain and Portugal. They are manufactured there, and a bale <strong>of</strong> cork wood, that<br />
would produce fifty gross <strong>of</strong> corks, would measure half a ton. That is what the would be when it<br />
is manufactured into corks ; it' measures just the lutlf, so that the importing cork wood into the country<br />
costs double in freight alone what manufactured corks cost. For corks the freight is 1~d. a gross,<br />
but if, you bring cork wood the freight is 3d. a gros~. If some person knew the trade, and had capital,<br />
there has been an opportunity in the last ten years. I know the trade from beginning to end, but I never<br />
could see that it would pay, or I would have commenced it long ago.<br />
47928. Would there be any diffiCLtlty in m~nying out the proposal made by one <strong>of</strong> the cork cutters<br />
to the Commission the other day that the duty should be iucreasBd from 4d. to 6d. a pound, and should be<br />
confined only to the class <strong>of</strong> corks cut here-the chemists' corks ?-I would have no objection at all.<br />
47929. I do not ask that. I ask practically would there be any difficulty in carrying out that<br />
suggestion ?-It must be because chemists use all sm·ts <strong>of</strong> corks-big ones and little ones, and it would not<br />
be much protection.<br />
47930. Do not go into that please. Keep to the definite point. You are an experienced hand in<br />
this business ?-Yes.<br />
47931. Have been at it for many years ?-Yes.<br />
47932. Is there any technical term by which chemists' corks are known in the trade which is not<br />
applied to any other corks-soda-water or any other?-Yes.<br />
47933. Then there is such a technical name ?-Yes.<br />
47934. Then if you apply that name and all other corks shall come in free but those, the trade<br />
and every one else would known what was meant<br />
47935. And you could prevent defrauding the revenue '?-Yes, but 6d. a pound upon corks would<br />
not be any protection.<br />
47936. That is not to the pm·pose. themselves ought to know and they ask for it. All<br />
I ask from you can practical effect be to it?-Yes, the names <strong>of</strong> corks would be vials and<br />
daffies.<br />
47937. Assuming that there might be !t way <strong>of</strong> evading the Customs by names and technical terms,<br />
for people who want t.o evade the Customs are very clever at it, is there a measurement that could be<br />
used ?-No, no measurement. A daffy is a cork a little larger than a vial cork, used for what we call<br />
ounce bottles.<br />
47938. What is the size <strong>of</strong> that cork in diameter ?-It is smaller than a ginger beer cork and larger<br />
than a vial.<br />
47939. Assuming that a vial cork is anything up to three-eighths <strong>of</strong> an inch in diameter, and that a<br />
daffy is half-an-inch, and that gingerbeer corks and other corks used by those cordial manufacturers are<br />
five-eighths or three-quarters <strong>of</strong> an inch, would it not be possible to make a tariff that all corks half-an-inch<br />
and downwards in diameter are to pay 6d. a pound duty and all corks above that free ?-Yes, it could be<br />
done.<br />
47940. Would not that be feasible ?-Yes, it would.<br />
47941. Have you anything else to say ?-No.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
U. Mont~omery,<br />
t:ontinued,<br />
26th Apr!l1888.<br />
Robert Godwin sworn and examined.<br />
47942. By the Chairman.-'\!Vhat are you ?-Cork manufacturer. l!obertGodw!n,<br />
47943. Cork cutter ?-Cork manufacturer, in all its branches. 26th Apri!Isaa.<br />
47944. Have you read the evidence that was given by other people in your business the other clay?<br />
-I have.<br />
47945. Do you agree with the proposal to increase the dnty to 6d. a pound upon all corks <strong>of</strong> a<br />
certain character, and let the rest in free ?-It is impossible to separate them like that.<br />
47946. Assuming that they could be separated, do you agree with that in principle ?-If the duty is<br />
increased to 6d. a pound, it must be over a,ll kinds <strong>of</strong> corks.<br />
47947. Assuming for the that such a division could be made, would you be satisfied with<br />
it ?-No.<br />
47948. Why would you not be satisfied ?-I would rather the duty remain as it i:; than that it should<br />
be altered in that form, because the would be handicapped very heavily against all others.<br />
47949. Tell me now, what difference it would make to a druggist whether he paid 6d. a<br />
pound duty npon his corks or 4d. imported price in some <strong>of</strong> the small corks is only 6cl. a gross, and<br />
6d. duty would be a shilling.<br />
47950. We are not talking about a gross, we are talking about a pound; how much would a gross<br />
<strong>of</strong> this sort weigh ?-Those small homreopathic corh we are cutting weigh about five gross to the pound,<br />
and the duty is only 4d. ·<br />
47951. Five gross <strong>of</strong> corks now pay 4d. duty upon the iivc ?-Just so.<br />
47952. If this proposal were canicd out, it would pay 6d. upon the five gross ?-Yes.<br />
47953. Do vou mean to tell me that that would make the appreciable difference to a homreopathic<br />
chemist ?-Not upon that line <strong>of</strong> eork~.<br />
47954:. That is one shut Ollt ; \\ L~:t ;"' : h: ,.. ,<br />
vial corks.<br />
47955. What are they price is from 9d. to ls. and upwards.<br />
47956. A gross ?-A gross.<br />
47957. Take ls. a gross as being the easiest, how many gross <strong>of</strong> those go to the ponnd ?-Three to<br />
four.<br />
TARIFF.<br />
8R
Robert God win,<br />
cJitin!Wl,<br />
:J6tb April 1883.<br />
WiltlamLedson,<br />
2Gtb Apr!ll883.<br />
± 7958. Let us take four gross that pay now a penny a gross duty ; that makes them I 3d. a gross<br />
instead <strong>of</strong> a<br />
1£ that were raised to 6d. a pound they would pay three halfpence a gross instead<br />
<strong>of</strong> a penny, and price would be I3~d.; do you mean to tell me that there is any chemist in the<br />
town that the a gross would make the smallest difference to ?-They made a difference buying<br />
them.<br />
47959. It does not matter buying t;ir is there any man that three a gross would<br />
make a difference to ?-No, it would not make a there, but it would upon the ones.<br />
47960. That is the daffies, as Mr. Montgomery called them ?-Yes.<br />
47961. That is for the cl1emists' eight-ounce bottles ?-Yes.<br />
47962. What are they worth ?-From Is. 6d. to 2s. 6d.<br />
47963. Take 2s. as a medium price, how go to the pound ?-They vary very much.<br />
47964. I have t.'1keu a middle price, you a middle size, how many gross <strong>of</strong> thoso go to the<br />
pound ?-I could not say.<br />
47965. Two gross ?-Yes, two gross fully.<br />
47966. Rather more, well take it at two. Now you see at the present time they pay 2d. a gross<br />
duty, under the arrangement that has been they would pay 3d. a gross; would the addition <strong>of</strong> ld.,<br />
making them 2s. Id. instead <strong>of</strong> 2s., make<br />
difference to any grocer in the city or anywhere else?<br />
-It is a matter <strong>of</strong> opinion.<br />
47967. It is not a matter <strong>of</strong> opinion, it is a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, it is a matter <strong>of</strong> pounds, shillings, and<br />
pence. Then chemists use those corks for an eight-ounce bottle <strong>of</strong> medicine. I venture to say you cannot<br />
buy such a bottle <strong>of</strong> medicine for less than 2s. or 2s. 6d., and if he puts up a <strong>of</strong> those bottles, what<br />
difference in the world would it be to him whether he paid 2s. instead <strong>of</strong> 2s. for the corks he has stuck<br />
into them ?-It is enough for an argument.<br />
47968. No man in the world would ra,ise an argument upon such a thing. What other arguments<br />
have you ?-It would throw a lot <strong>of</strong> men out <strong>of</strong> work.<br />
47969. How many men have you at work ?-Four men, two apprentices, and the boys.<br />
47970. How many <strong>of</strong> those are employed upon the class <strong>of</strong> corks that would be free <strong>of</strong> duty if this<br />
idea were carried out ?-I do not think enough to keep the firm going.<br />
47971. Do you cut chemists'· corks ?-No.<br />
47972. What kind <strong>of</strong> corks do you cut ?-.All kinds.<br />
47973. You do not cut any homreopathic corks ?-Yes, we do.<br />
47974. Those are chemists' corks ?-Yes.<br />
47975. How many <strong>of</strong> your four men are employetl upon that ?-It would not keep one constantly<br />
47976. What sort do you cut ?-Lemonade corks, ·gin corks, wine every description <strong>of</strong> corks,<br />
and to sample.<br />
47977. I~emonade corks, what does the duty come to upon a gross <strong>of</strong> those ?-Fourpence a pound.<br />
47978. I know that, but how many gross go to a pound ?-They take an average <strong>of</strong> a pound a gross.<br />
47979. So that is a protection <strong>of</strong> 4cl. upon every gross <strong>of</strong> corks ?-Yes.<br />
47980. How many gross <strong>of</strong> those corks do you cut in a year ?-I could not calculate that, for we<br />
only commenced clown at this in December last. I have been working at the trade myself for<br />
twenty years past.<br />
4"7981. How many gross <strong>of</strong> those lemonacle corks do you cut in a year ?-I cannot telL We cut<br />
with a machine. We have three machines working, and the machine will cut about thirty gross a clay.<br />
47982 . .And if the 4c1. a pound dnty were taken <strong>of</strong>f you could not cut them ?-I should throw<br />
it up.<br />
47983. How many men are employed in this trade altogether ?-I cannot tell how many there are<br />
in the country. I know how I have got.<br />
47984. You want the duty stop as it is ?-I want the duty to stop as it is.<br />
The witness 1oithdrew.<br />
vVilliam Ledson sworn and examined.<br />
47985. By tlte Clzairman.-What are you ?-Cork cutter.<br />
47986. Which <strong>of</strong> this eontradictory evidence do you agree with; clo you agree with the evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
Mr. Goclwin to-clay, or the evidence <strong>of</strong> another cork cutter the other day who wanted the duty altered to<br />
increase the duty to 6cl. upon some kinus <strong>of</strong> corks, and let the others in free ·?-I agree with Mr.<br />
God win.<br />
47987. Have you to add to what Mr. Godwin said ?-I would prefer to add 2d:a pound to<br />
make it 6d. upon all classes <strong>of</strong> goods, because we manufacture all classes.<br />
47988. How many more hands do you suppose would be engaged in this business if the duty were<br />
increased to 6d. ?-.At there are fifteen men employed in cork cutting in the colony, and six boys<br />
and eleven machines. machine is equal to four men, that is altogether about--<br />
47989. Will you answer my question, please. How men de you suppose would be employed<br />
if you get this increase <strong>of</strong> duty ?-In the course <strong>of</strong> time our would become established, and we should<br />
have some hundreds <strong>of</strong> men.<br />
47990. How much <strong>of</strong> the stuff you import to turn into corks is waste ?-Simply the<br />
47991. What proportion does that bear to the whole <strong>of</strong> it ?-I could not exactly say. The waste is<br />
made into kamptulicon carpets for <strong>of</strong>fices and places <strong>of</strong> worship.<br />
47992. You have not answered my question. How much <strong>of</strong> the cork is wasted ?-I could not say.<br />
47993. Is it half ?-No.<br />
47994. Is it a quarter ?-No, simply the shaving <strong>of</strong> the cork. You can pare a shaving as thin as a<br />
wafer, and that is the waste.<br />
47995. The cork is round, is it not ?-Yes.<br />
47996. When you round things out <strong>of</strong> a 1lat surface, there is always a waste but we<br />
do not do that in cork<br />
47997. How do you 11revent it ?-By workmanship. Take it <strong>of</strong>f as thin as a wafer.
14Hl<br />
47998. You cut litt.le corks out <strong>of</strong> the pieces left in the corners-is that it?-No. Every quarter is Wiiliam:ieiliiqn; 1<br />
cut as square as possible, and is given to men to round or to. a machine. Each machine could turn out 26 t;;"::!:::fts~W.<br />
about thirty-six gross a day. There are fifteen men in the trade and six boys altogether. Weekly we turn<br />
out, or could turn out, 2,916 gross every week, that is by hand labour~ machines and boys.<br />
47999. How many did you turn out last year ?-I am sorry to say I was in the bush, just owing to<br />
this very question. I was working upon the railway now being built for the Queensland border in South<br />
Australia, just owing to the duty not being sufficient to give me employment here. Business has now been<br />
resumed, and I came down employed by Mr. God win. Our trade is prosperous at present.<br />
48000. I understand yom evidence to amount to this, that you want an increase to sixpence ?-That<br />
is it, and then we should soon have numbers. We have written to England now for men, and also<br />
advertised in New South Wales for men if we can get them. Some <strong>of</strong> our tradesmen have been forced to<br />
work in the bush, because they could not get work at their trade.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Aiijourned to Tuesday next, at Ttvo o'clock.<br />
JA~!ES<br />
TUESDAY, 1sT MAY, 1883.<br />
MIRAllfS,<br />
The Hon. J. IJorimer, M.L.C.,<br />
The Hon. G. Meares, M.IJ.C.,<br />
E. !J. Zox, Esq., M.L.A.,<br />
W. F. Walker, Esq., 1\LL.A.,<br />
Present:<br />
Esq., M.L.A., in the Chair ;<br />
I
1420<br />
BeiLI'1 Burrows, 48023. Those are the things that it is all-important to show. Can you tell the Commission what<br />
~.~~1~ 3 • was the price. I suppose you sell wholesale by the hundredweight, do you not ?-Yes.<br />
48024. What was the price per hundredweight <strong>of</strong> any particular )ine <strong>of</strong> confectioneries you manu-,<br />
facture ?-Once I recollect the competition was so keen that we sold at 40s. for boiled goods and 50s. for,<br />
dry, less 10 per cent., and now they are 50s. and 60s., less 10 per cent.<br />
, 48025. That is an increase in price ?-Yes.<br />
48026. I understood you that prices are lower now than they used to be ?-That is many years ago.<br />
48027. Can you tell the Commission what dates those prices refer to, 40s. and 50s., and 50s. and 60s.<br />
It is 40s. for boiled and 50s. for dry to start with, and then it is 50s. for boiled and 60s. for dry at the<br />
present date-is that it?-Yes.<br />
48028. Can you give the dates at which those prices were obtained ?-I could send them. I did not<br />
come prepared with any notes.<br />
, 48029. You say that at the preceding period to either <strong>of</strong> the times you refer to in those rates there<br />
was a time when the price was higher than either <strong>of</strong> those two ?-Yes.<br />
48030. At what elate was that ?-They used to be at 10d. a pound at one time.<br />
48031. Now you are going to the price per pound. Give me the price per cwt. ?-In the year<br />
1870 was the day <strong>of</strong> small things. We used to quote by the pound then.<br />
48032. Reduce those prices to the pound that you have told us ?-60s. is 6:§d., and 50s. is 5d.<br />
48033. When they were lOd. a pound was that before Mr. Francis gave you a penny a pound duty?<br />
-I think it was-yes. ~.<br />
48034. You know the date when you got a penny a pound duty?-We have lots <strong>of</strong> books.<br />
48035. Do not you remember the date ?-No, in fact I do not do much in that line now, we have<br />
clerks to do onr work.<br />
48036. I understood you to say that the tariff exactly suits your industry ?-Yes, I was home three<br />
or four years ago, and"went over very large factories, and they said all they were waiting for was for us<br />
Australians to take the duty <strong>of</strong>f, and they would soon send it in to us.<br />
48037. Is there any article that you use in your manufacture that you pay duty upon that you desire<br />
a decrease in ?-Yes, I think that lemon peel is one. )V e import lemon peel in a partially prepared state.<br />
It is put into a liquid syrup and drained and packed together and sent out here, the rind <strong>of</strong> the lemon, and<br />
we pay 2d. a pound duty upon it, and it is only 2cl. a pound on the same article when sent from England<br />
ready for sale. .<br />
48038. Under what heading is that, is it preserved and dried fruits ?-Yes, we try to get all the<br />
lemons we can here and in Sydney, but it is only a trifle compared with the requirements. We are obliged<br />
to send home for it; and after it comes out, we have to wash <strong>of</strong>f the syrup from it, and dry it, and candy<br />
it, and put it into boxes to prepare it for the grocer. We think that the duty ought to be less to encourage<br />
us. See what a lot <strong>of</strong> labour we are at before it is ready for sale.<br />
48039. What is the value <strong>of</strong> the article itself without the duty ?-It is about 56s. a cwt., at home,<br />
in that state.<br />
48040. That is 6d. a pound ?-I may say that we went to Mr. A. T. Clark, when he was Commissioner<br />
<strong>of</strong> Customs, and he agreed to pass it, but it fell through again.<br />
48041. That costs 6d. a pound, and you pay 2d. a pound duty upon it ?-Yes.<br />
48042. And it is one <strong>of</strong> the raw materials <strong>of</strong> your industry ?-Yes. It does not pay us, because we<br />
have to sell to the merchants-we have sold as low as 9d. Now 6d. for raw material at home, paying<br />
freight and 2d. a pound duty, brings it up to 8d., and then there is our labour and finding boxes and string.<br />
Of course it comes out manufactured from home by merchants, and we have no chance whatever.<br />
48043. You have to sell at 9d. ?-Different prices-9d., 9:fd., 9~d., and lOd. in small quantities.<br />
48044. How would you dlstinguish between that which comes ready for sale and that which comes<br />
only for you to manipulate after it gets here-if the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f it would be taken <strong>of</strong>f all round,<br />
would it not ?-No, not upon the manufactured article.<br />
48045~ Are there any technical terms to distinguish them ?-Yes; one is drained peel and the other<br />
is candied peel.<br />
48046. You want the drained peel to . be brought in duty free, so that you may convert it into<br />
candied peel here ?-Yes.<br />
48047. Is there anything else that you use 1n your industry ?-We were going to ask you about<br />
almonds. We pay 2d. a pound upon those-upon shelled almonds. There is a very large consumption <strong>of</strong><br />
those articles by biscuit bakers and confectioners.<br />
48048. £1,055 in 1881 was collected upon those ?-This is shelled almonds.<br />
48049. Who use those almonds principally ?-Every confectioner and every biscuit baker and every<br />
cake maker-it is wonderful the quantity <strong>of</strong> almonds that are used; they come from Adelaide too-we use<br />
all we can get from Adelaide-one ton, two tons, or five tons, as they are to be obtained.<br />
48050. JY/r. Grimwade.-The duty shows fifty tons a year about, or a little more.<br />
48051. By tl;,e Chairman.-What proportion does the 2d. bear to the value <strong>of</strong> the article ?-The<br />
almonds are used for so many things.<br />
48052. What is the cost <strong>of</strong> almonds per pound wholesale ?-I suppose about 6d. to 7d. at home.<br />
48053. And in the other colony too ?-No, they are lld. per lb. in Adelaide, and the duty here 2d.<br />
per lb. brings them up to 13cl.; we very seldom buy Adelaide almonds here under 13d.<br />
48054. And the home almonds by the time they are landed cost about lOd. ?-Yes, that is about<br />
the average price. I think that is the price you could get them at now; I think lOd. the cheapest.<br />
48055. Is there anything else that you use that you wish to be admitted free ?-No; I think everything<br />
is just as reasonable as we could expect it.<br />
48056. How about the question <strong>of</strong> sugar ?-It would not be for us to interfere with that, would<br />
it? I think we are perfectly satisfied with sngar, for we are protected otherwise ..<br />
48057. Have you ever tried the Queensland sugar?-Yes.<br />
48058. Is it suitable for your industry ?-Yes, it is good strong sugar.<br />
48059. If we could make an arrangement with the Queensland people to admit their sugar free,<br />
would it suit your industry ?-Certainly.
1421<br />
48060. Would the public get the benefit <strong>of</strong> the reduction in the cost <strong>of</strong> the manufactured<br />
article?-You muy depend the local competition would soon give the public the benefit <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
48061. What per cent. does the duty upon sugar bear to the cost <strong>of</strong> sugar. The duty is £3 a<br />
ton, is it not ?-Yes.<br />
48062. What is the value <strong>of</strong> sugar ?-From £30 to £35 a ton, I think.<br />
48063. It is a little less than 10 per cent. ?-Yes.<br />
48064. If that 10 per cent. upon the cost <strong>of</strong> sugar were removed by bringing Queensland sugar free<br />
the public would get the advantage <strong>of</strong> that reduction in cost, would it not ?-I feel sure they would.<br />
48065. By what means ?-That one house would go and <strong>of</strong>fer the goods at a less price, and <strong>of</strong><br />
course if one does that we must all do it.<br />
48066. Would you, as a local manufacturer, have any objection to the passing <strong>of</strong> a clause in the<br />
Customs Act that local manufacturers <strong>of</strong> all descriptions should be compelled to brand their own goods, so<br />
that the public may know that they are buying colonial things, and not buy colonial things under the<br />
supposition they are imported ?-Certainly, I would approve <strong>of</strong> that. I think it is a very necessary clause.<br />
48067. Does your trade suffer at all from the prejudice <strong>of</strong> the public against colonial-made things?<br />
-I do not think so, but I have <strong>of</strong>ten known other people's inferior goods put into our tins.<br />
48068. Other colonial people?-Yes, but we do not think that is anything.<br />
48069. Your own industry, that is your own personal industry, speaking for your own branch alone,<br />
does not suffer from a prejudice against colonial-made confectionery ?-No.<br />
48070. It is past that stage ?-Yes.<br />
48071. Did you experience any prejudice at first ?-I do not think so.<br />
48072. Have you anything else you wish to state to the Commission ?-No, I do not think so.<br />
48073. By Mr .. Mclnt,yre.-Will you explain to the Commission about the 50s. for dried, and 40s.<br />
for boiled, less 10 per cent. You say you used to sell at a loss, and now you say it is 50s. and 60s., and yet<br />
you say before the duty you sold for lOd., and now you sell for 6!d. I do not understand that ?-No, it<br />
is the competition and fighting in the trade that brought down the prices, and we were losing money. There<br />
is a gentleman now in the room who lost a considerable amount <strong>of</strong> money.<br />
48074. That was before the duty was put on ?-No, that was the low prices.<br />
48075. Which are the low prices ?-The 40s. and 50s.<br />
48076. Cannot you give us the date or near it?-Yes, certainly.<br />
48077. What time was it ?-I must go back to the year 1880.<br />
48078. Explain this, your evidence shows that taking the hundredweight rate you are selling clearer<br />
than you were then, and you say now you are selling at 6!ll. a pound ?-Yes, at 60s. a cwt.<br />
48079. And formerly you sold at lOd.?-Yes, before the duty was put on.<br />
48080. I cannot understand that. Will you supply the Commission with the particulars about that?<br />
-Yes, certainly.*<br />
48081. Can you tell us the price <strong>of</strong> sugar at that time ?-My memory does not furnish me with it.<br />
48082, Will you furnish that too ?-Yes.t<br />
48083. Is not the lemon largely grown in the country ?-In Sydney.<br />
48084. Is it not grown in this country ?-Only a few, quite a trifle.<br />
48085. Lemons are growing here ?-Yes.<br />
48086. And it is a good country fOT them ?-Yes, but they have a good market. It would not pay<br />
to give more than !Os. a case at the outside, and they get £1 by sending them to San Francisco.<br />
48087. I spoke <strong>of</strong> ours ?-And Sydney.<br />
48088. But ours?-We could use them all in a week.<br />
48089. Is the 2d. no encouragement to persons producing lemons ?-Yes, it is, and that is why I<br />
am surprised more is not grown.<br />
48090. You wish to keep the 2d. a pound upon your lollypops, and you do not wish the lemon<br />
grower to have 2d. a pound upon lemons ?-They cannot produce enough.<br />
48091. Do not almonds grow very largely in <strong>Victoria</strong> ?-We can never get any. A few in the<br />
gardens; but what are not consumed privately are sold to the small shops.<br />
48092. They are grown very largely in <strong>Victoria</strong>, smely ?-We should like to buy them if we could.<br />
We never bought any here ; there are none for sale. They are all sold in the shell.<br />
48093. Are you sure it is not prejudice about the <strong>Victoria</strong>n-grown article ?-No. I am a <strong>Victoria</strong>n,<br />
I have been out here thirty years.<br />
48094. And you never tried to use <strong>Victoria</strong>n almonds ?-If we could get them we would.<br />
48095. Why do not you buy them in the shell ?-They would not pay. There is a very great<br />
demand here for almonds in the shell.<br />
48096. Do not you think that the 2d. a pound, which applies to almonds in the shell as well as<br />
almonds shelled, is an encouragement to the continuance <strong>of</strong> the production <strong>of</strong> that article ?-But they do<br />
not produce them. It is like the lemons, we cannot get lemons.<br />
48097. But they do grow them largely. Every other garden has its almond trees in it ?-Yes; I<br />
have four or five, but my children eat them all.<br />
48098. Then the principle <strong>of</strong> protection does not apply to this at all. You want your raw material<br />
free, but your raw material is other people's actual product. Why should not they have the same<br />
encouragement as you have, 2d. a pound. They have not come up to your point yet, but by-and-by they<br />
may probably. You want this 2d. a pound, it is useful to you, is it not ?-Certainly.<br />
48099. And you would not be selfish enough to wish it taken <strong>of</strong>f fruit ?-It would enable<br />
confectioners and others to make their articles cheaper.<br />
48100. But you would take away from the producer <strong>of</strong> the article that protection that you yourself<br />
largely want. Now how did you get along in lmsiness before the duty was imposed at all ?-Used to work<br />
like a nigger from fou; o'clock in the morning to nine o'clock at night.<br />
48101-2. And now you go about like a gentleman, doing nothing, and let a hired workina-man<br />
do your work ?-But it gives them plenty to do.<br />
"'<br />
-~ On revising his evidence the witness ad,led that ulocal competition was greater, and the increase in local manufacturer was ve,J.'y great after the<br />
duty was put on.,<br />
t On revising his evldence the witness added that the price w•s from £30 to £40.<br />
Henry Burrows,<br />
continued,<br />
lst M•y 1883.
Henry Burrows, 48103. Now, how did you on before ?-I am very glad <strong>of</strong> the position I am in; but I think<br />
laf~~;"i:s~ it is through my industry, and living; a proper lif~, and going on c~refully: . . , .<br />
48104. Then it is not the State that has brought you mto this po:ntwn ?-fhe protectiOn has<br />
helped us. I started in business in 1856.<br />
48105. How did you on under the penny duty ?-Not much better.<br />
48106. Then you require the 2d. absolutely to continue ?-We never made any headway. We<br />
were making a living and paying everybody, it is true, before the tariff.<br />
41H07. Are you sufficiently established now; do you think you could compete with the imported<br />
article fairly now ?-No, I do not think we could. Sugar that we are paying £36 for now, I think, is about<br />
£31 in England.<br />
48108. If a penny was taken <strong>of</strong>f this duty, would it not be sufficient protection for you ?-Ko, I think<br />
not.<br />
, 48109. Do you think the imported article would beat you then ?-No ; I was over some very large<br />
establishments in England, where they keep a staff <strong>of</strong> engineers and other men to make goods, and they buy<br />
everything :first-hand in large quantities, and they can make very much cheaper than we.<br />
48110. Have you not got all those appliances here ?-Not upon the same scale.<br />
48111. Could not you get them ?-I may not be rich enough to get them.<br />
48112. What is the price here in bond <strong>of</strong> the same article that you sell for 6d. ?-I do not know.<br />
48113. You have no idea <strong>of</strong> the price <strong>of</strong> the imported article, then; for aught you know, you might be<br />
able to compete with the imported article ?-I do not think so.<br />
48114. You have no idea <strong>of</strong> the price, but we can measure the quantity imported. The total duty<br />
upon confections, sweetmeats, succades, and so on, last year was only £3,280 ?-We have not imported much<br />
<strong>of</strong> that sort.<br />
48115. With rega~·d to the changing <strong>of</strong> the tins that the Chairman d1·ew your attention to, the<br />
atte]llpt to sell yours for inferior ; does that apply to the tntdesmen mostly in the colony ?-No, only small<br />
shops. . . ·<br />
48116. What kind <strong>of</strong> arLicle do they put into your tins ?-I do not think it is done with any intention<br />
to deceive, b11t if they buy from a house, when they are sold they have the tins filled np.<br />
48117. Then the article they put in may be equal to your own ?-It may be.<br />
48118. Is the <strong>of</strong> the confections, &c., pretty equal all through the trade ?-I think so.<br />
48119. You a tariff amongst yourselves ?-I think so.<br />
48120. You have a certain fixed price for all?-Yes; they do not act exactly straight.<br />
48121. Then if a competitor comes in and sells at a penny a pound cheaper you all come down to<br />
that price too ?-Obliged to.<br />
48122. And get' along pretty well still ?-I do not know about that.<br />
48123. By the Hon. Mr. Lorimer.-Were you in England recently ?-I was there in 1877.<br />
48124. Do not you know the English manufacturer's price <strong>of</strong> the conesponding material to what you<br />
sell at 60s. ?-I really forget, we have the prices. .<br />
48125. You could let us know what the price is ?-I could let you know, I dare say we have circulars<br />
at our <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
48126, Do you know the cost <strong>of</strong> importing confectionery from England, how much per cwt. or how<br />
much per lb. it would be, exclusive <strong>of</strong> duty, freight, and ordinary charges ?-Really I could not tell you. I<br />
do not bear those things in mind.<br />
48127. Then cannot you tell us whether you could do vrith a smaller duty than 2d. a pound, would<br />
not 1d. a pound be sufficient protection now that the industry is established ?-I do not think so.<br />
48128. Suppose the duties were taken <strong>of</strong>f your raw material, lemon peel, almonds, and sugar ?-A<br />
penny a pound would do then.<br />
48129. It would be sufficient then ?-I think so.<br />
48130. What sugar do you use chiefly?-We use Mauritius and Queensland, and the company's<br />
sugar, and crushed sugar imported.<br />
48131. Cannot Mauritius sugar be laid down in Melbourne cheaper than in London ?-They do not<br />
use much <strong>of</strong> that in London, I think it is mostly loaf. ·<br />
48132. The freight from Mauritius to Melbourne must be less than the freight from Mauritius to<br />
London, and Queenslaml sugar ?-That sort <strong>of</strong> sugar is used for goods that do not come out from England ;<br />
boiled sugars do not come from England, they will not keep, it is only the best dried goods.<br />
48133. There is no duty upon sugar in England ?~No.<br />
48134. Then if there was no duty here could not you get it cheaper than in London ?-I do not<br />
think so.<br />
48135. Is it not a fact that they ean produce it cheaper in Queensland than they can in Fiji and the<br />
Mauritius ?-Not the high elass sugars I think. I think every one has all this information in their <strong>of</strong>fices,<br />
that is all I can sav.<br />
48136. Th~ sugar planters in Queensland claim to be able to produce cheaper than the Mauritius?<br />
-[No ans'wer.J<br />
48137. By lvlr. Zox.-Are you an exporter <strong>of</strong> lollies ?-~o, not lollies.<br />
48138. Do you to any <strong>of</strong> the colonies any <strong>of</strong> your manufactured lollies?-Yes.<br />
48139. To any ?-Not so much now. We used to do a large business in New Zealand.<br />
Since we had a drawback <strong>of</strong> £3 a ton the busine.~s inCI·eased to some extent, but so manv have failed in<br />
New Zealand that that trade is almost done away with. -<br />
48140. Is the drawback (lone away with now ?-No.<br />
48141. By getting a drawback upon the export <strong>of</strong> your lollies can you compete with the English<br />
market in the other colonies ?-Not quite.<br />
481·12. What proportion does your export trade bear to the trade you do in <strong>Victoria</strong>?-That I should<br />
have to see our books to say. · · · ,<br />
48143. Do you send to Sydney?-Very few, and that is fancy goods, crystallized fruits and faney<br />
best goods, because they sell as cheap in Sydney as we do. We have to pay a duty for all we send into<br />
Sydney. .<br />
48144. Are there any manufacturers iu your line <strong>of</strong> bnsinepS in Sydney?-res, ~iqdell Brotberl5 tl>r\3 .<br />
.p.~~rl,r all large afl Of!rselves. ' ' ·<br />
14~2
1423<br />
48145 . .Are they aule to compete there with the English lollies ?-I cannot answer for them.<br />
48146. Is there any duty ?-I think 1~d.<br />
48147. By llfr. Grimwade.-What is the duty upon sugar in New South Wales ?-Five shillings, I<br />
think.<br />
48148. By Mr. Zox.-Is there a factory here for the making <strong>of</strong> this canuied lemon peel ?-No.<br />
48149. Mr. Lorimer put the question to you, suppose all the duties were taken <strong>of</strong>f articles that you<br />
require in your business, do yon think then that you would be enabled to compete with the English article ?<br />
-.And the 2cl. a pound taken <strong>of</strong>f?<br />
48150. Twopence a pound <strong>of</strong>f the peel, so much <strong>of</strong>f the almonds, and £3 a ton <strong>of</strong>f sugar, would you<br />
then say you woura be in as good a position as if you had the duty now imposed upon the manufactmed<br />
article ?-I think so, if the duty upon sugar was taken <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
48151. You said just now that in the event <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> those duties being abrogated that the public<br />
would get the benefit <strong>of</strong> it ?--Yes.<br />
48152. You would be able to sell cheaper ?-Yes.<br />
48153. Will you tell the Commission, if you please, supposing you manufaetnrecl a ton <strong>of</strong> sugar into<br />
lollies, how many lollies that ton <strong>of</strong> sugar would produce ?-.A ton <strong>of</strong> lollies, nearly.<br />
48154. Do you know how mneh a pound (supposing the £3 duty was taken <strong>of</strong>f sugar) that would be<br />
upon the article itself ?-I am' not scholar enough to say.<br />
48155. I will tell you what i.t is. It is about a farthing and a half per pound. Now, how would the<br />
public get the benefit <strong>of</strong> it, r,upposing the £3 duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f-that is, the general public who buy in<br />
ounces or three-quarters <strong>of</strong> a pound or a pound-if the reduction were only one farthing and a half a pound?<br />
-When I said the public, I meant tile storekeeper.<br />
48156. Then, as far as you are concerned, the manufacturer and the storekeeper only get the benefit?<br />
-Many <strong>of</strong> the little shops give away all the lollies they buy. It is nothing to us what they do with them<br />
after they pay us.<br />
48157. Then, in fact, the benefit the general public would get woulcl be infinitesimally small ?-It<br />
would certainly.<br />
48158. By the Chairman.-Is there anything further you wish to add ?-No.<br />
Tl.e witness ~oitl.drew.<br />
Robert Black sworn and examined.<br />
llenry Burrows,<br />
continued,<br />
1st .May 1883.<br />
48159. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-I am a confectioner. Robert Black,<br />
48160. Wholesale confectioner ?-Wholesale confectioner. lstli:IaylB83,<br />
48161. Confectioneq manufacturer ?-l\fanufacturer.<br />
48162. Where is your manufactory? -<strong>Victoria</strong> street, Hotham.<br />
48163. How many hands do you employ ?-:Fifteen only; we are small.<br />
48164. When did you start ?-Exactly ten years ago.<br />
48165. How many hands had you t11en ?-One or two, my partner and myself, with the assistance <strong>of</strong><br />
a youth.<br />
48166. You have heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Burrows ?-Yes.<br />
48167. Do you agree with that evidence ?-Quite, excepting in this matter-a question put to him<br />
about prices. He said 50s. and 60s. were the prices now, and some time ago 40s. and 50s., and it was asked<br />
whether the tariff affected that, but that was while we had a duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound. It was only local competition<br />
and folly that brought it down to those prices ; but the prices before the duty was put on were very<br />
much higher than 50s. or 60s. and 40s. or 50s.<br />
48168. By Jlfr. Zox.-He saidlO~d. ?-Quite so ; this is a point I want to explain. It was not the<br />
tariff that made the differ.ence in the price between the 40s. and 50s. and 50s. and 60s., but local competition.<br />
The price at the time when the lollies were free <strong>of</strong> duty was very mnch higher than 50s. or 60s., possibly 9d.,<br />
10d., and lid. a pound.<br />
48169. By tlte Cltai1•man.-Before the 2d. duty was put on ?-Before the 2d. duty was put on; the<br />
price is absolutely cheaper since the duty has been put on than it was before this duty.<br />
•!8170. That is what Mr. Burrows started by saying ?-Quite so, but I think the evidence was misconceived.<br />
48171. .About this 9d., l Od., and lld. a pound, when those prices ranged, was that during the time<br />
the 1 d. duty was in operation ?-Yes, and before there was any duty at all. I may say that I was a confectioner<br />
before this time, a good many years before that. .At that time we got 1s. a pmmd for lollies, and<br />
we hall no duty upon lollies then.<br />
48172. What was the effect <strong>of</strong> putting on the lc1. a pound which the Franeis Ministry gave<br />
you ?-I was not in business at that time.<br />
48173. You left it for a time?-Yes, I left it. Twenty-five years ago I was in the trade. At that<br />
time there was no duty. Between that date and the time that this 1d. duty was put on, I was out <strong>of</strong><br />
business. I returned to business since then, and there has been a duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound upon lollies ever<br />
since I have been in business the second time.<br />
48174. So you had no experience <strong>of</strong> the prices obtained while the Id. a pound duty was in<br />
operation ?-None.<br />
48175. You are only speaking now <strong>of</strong> the prices previous to any duty at all, and the prices during<br />
the 2d. a pound tariff?-That is all.<br />
48176. And we understand you to say that the competition between the local producers shortly after<br />
the 2d. was put on had the effect <strong>of</strong> bringing clown the prices to 40s. and 50s. respectively ?-No, I wouhl<br />
say to 50s, and 60s., it was folly that brought them clown to 40s. and 50s., a thing outside the tariff.<br />
48177. It was competition at any rate ?-Competition, but outside the tariff-ill will, unfriendliness,'<br />
48178. And since then the manufacturers have returned to the bther prices?-Yes.<br />
48179. By Mr . .Llfcintyre.-Had a knock out ?-No; but we have wisely seen it was folly to sell<br />
at any prices.<br />
48180. I want to know what you mean by wisely ?-I think that it was very unwise to sell at 5s, a<br />
cwt. less than you could produce it, simply because you were on lmfriendly terms with your neighbours.
Robert Block,<br />
. ,
1425<br />
48210. How many hours do they work for thttt ? -About ten hours.<br />
48211. Ten hours a dav ?-Yes.<br />
48212. And the lads b~gin at 7s a week, do I undcrsttmd you to say ?-Yes, generally is. or Ss.,<br />
according to what they are and their size. ·<br />
48213. And you increase them yearly till they reach the age <strong>of</strong> journeymen ?-Yes.<br />
48214. What proportion <strong>of</strong> those 335 hands will be lads under eighteen ?-About lOO.<br />
48215. Do you employ any femalAs at all ?-Yes.<br />
48216. How many <strong>of</strong> those ?-About 70.<br />
48217. A uy .<strong>of</strong> those under eighteen?-Yes.<br />
48218. Ho.w many do you think ?-A large majority,<br />
48219. Seventy females, most <strong>of</strong> whom are under eighteen?-Yes.<br />
48220. What do they earn ?-Various wages from 7s. to Ss. up to £1.<br />
48221. And how many hours do they work-the same as the males ?-Yes, a little shorter. Perhaps<br />
they commence five minutes later and leave five minutes earlier; a little shorter. The men do not work exactly<br />
ten hours.<br />
48222. Do you find any difficulty in getting employes ?-Yes, we could do with more <strong>of</strong> the right<br />
sort.<br />
48223. vVhatdo you mean by the "right sort'' ?-Respectable and good, that are desirous <strong>of</strong> working<br />
and getting on.<br />
48224. Plenty to be got who are not <strong>of</strong> that description ?-Yes there are too many.<br />
48225. In what way has the tariff affected your industry ?-It has not affected it at all.<br />
48226. Neither one way nor the other ?-As far as the duty on biscuits goes it has not affected us.<br />
As far as the tariff put duty upon other articles that we use-our machinery and so forth-it has very much<br />
injured us. As for the duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound on biscuits it is inoperative. If you say it neither does<br />
good nor harm, it does no good ; it does harm possibly, and is a very bad example to the other colonies<br />
where we would like to have intercolonial free-trade.<br />
48227. There are very few biscuits imported now ?-No, now we are very large exporters.<br />
48228. But there was a large quantity imported when you began, was not there ?-No.<br />
When you say "began " tlo you metm when the duty was :first put on. When we started twenty-nine<br />
years ago there was a large amount <strong>of</strong> biscuits imported prior to that, and it continued a good while, but<br />
when a duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound was put upon biscuits, perhaps that year and the year prior a large<br />
quantity <strong>of</strong> useless ship stores were brought on shore for pigs and dogs, and for feeding purposes, and when<br />
the 2d. a p01md was imposed it entirely stopped that. The biscuits were sent away and ceased to land.<br />
48229. Do I understand you to say that the class <strong>of</strong> biscuit imported before the duty was imposed<br />
was not the class <strong>of</strong> biscuit that competed with you at all : it was a class <strong>of</strong> ship biscuit landed for clogs<br />
and pigs ?-Yes, nine-tenths <strong>of</strong> the biscuits landed for a year before the duty were not for human consumption<br />
at all.<br />
48230. Then ab.,ut the time when it was a penny a. pound-it was not made 2d. a pound all at<br />
once ?-Yes, I think it was.<br />
48231. No, not at all ?-I do not know that there was much difference between the penny and 2d.;<br />
biscuits would not come in any way.<br />
48232. I am not speaking <strong>of</strong> what they would do now, but what it was when you commenced. I<br />
can understand that now you have reached a stage when the duty is a matter <strong>of</strong> indifference, but was that<br />
always so. How many hands did you employ before there was a duty at all ?-We commenced with very<br />
few and gradually worked on,<br />
48233. How many hands did you begin with twenty-nine years ago ?-I commenced with my own.<br />
'18234. Do you know when the duty was first imposed-a penny a pound ?-I think it was 1865. I<br />
would not speak positively, if you ha:ve the dates there.<br />
48235. Yes, I have the dates here. In 1867 the duty was put on. After tl1at duty <strong>of</strong> a penny a<br />
pound was put on can you give the Commission any information as to the rate at which your business<br />
increased ?-No, I do not know. The business has generally increased about ten hands yearly, pretty<br />
steadily, but the business has very much increased during the last two or three years. The Sydney Exhibition<br />
and our own Exhibition gave a wonderful impetus to our trade.<br />
48236. Do you know how long the penny a pound duty remained before you got the additional<br />
penny ?-I think it might be perhaps four years.<br />
48237. Do you advocate the abolition <strong>of</strong> the 2d. a pound on biscuits ?-Yes, it is no good.<br />
Of course~ we would like to see the duties tabm <strong>of</strong>f in other colonies too, to use ours as a lever, if we could,<br />
to take theirs <strong>of</strong>f too. It is no good. It is only setting up a bad example and doing us no good, because<br />
we have the credit <strong>of</strong> getting protection which does us no good, and everything we use and consmne is<br />
heavily taxed, which makes the amount <strong>of</strong> dnties we pay nearly as much as our wages.<br />
48238. Will you enumerate the articles upon which you pay duties, and upon which you wish to<br />
have the duties removed ?-Yes.<br />
48239. What are the first ?-Sugar. Of course we would like to have the duty o:ff sugar. Of<br />
course a very large amount <strong>of</strong> flour and wheat is grown here. Perhaps it might not always be in the event<br />
<strong>of</strong> a scarcity--<br />
48240. But you do not want the duty <strong>of</strong>f wheat ?-Yes, wheat and flour.<br />
48241. Is not the duty inoperative the same as in youi: own article <strong>of</strong> biscuits ?-I was just coming<br />
to that-though it is upon foreign :fiour, there is an article which we -very much use for ship bread called<br />
sharps or pollard which is very cheap in Adelaide, and particularly so in New Zealand, which is met here<br />
with a duty <strong>of</strong> £2 a ton.<br />
48242. _1\.r·e there no sharps made here from our own grown wheat?-Yes, there are.<br />
48243. Is not that large enough to supply your requirements ?-Yes, as far as being large enough,<br />
but there is a large demand for those things for other purposes. We l!oulcl buy sharps in'Nevr Zealand and<br />
bring them here pr<strong>of</strong>itably but for the duty, which puts about 50 per cent. upon their cost.<br />
48244. Will you explain to the Commission how it is that this duty upon wheat or the primary production<br />
<strong>of</strong> wheat is operative, and you say it is not in the case <strong>of</strong> biscuits which are exactly on the same<br />
footing.<br />
TARIFF.<br />
You have both overtalcen the supply and there is a large export?-There is not a large export <strong>of</strong><br />
8 S<br />
T. Swallow,<br />
continued,<br />
1st ::.l!'y 1883.
T.Swallow,<br />
contintwd,<br />
lst May 1883.<br />
1426<br />
sharps and pollard. But for the duty we could use very much cheaper sharps than we now use. If our<br />
factory was in Sydney, where the article goes in from New Zealand free--<br />
4824,5. ·what is the next article ?-The article <strong>of</strong> driecl fruits-currants, sultana raisins; all kinds<br />
<strong>of</strong> peels. They are all 2d. a pound.<br />
48246. Those are evidently revenue duties and are not put on for protective' purposes at all, and to<br />
remove them would make a great hole in the revenue. £56,000 was collected last year. I suppose currants·<br />
is the article you use most ?-Yes, and sultanas <strong>of</strong> all kinds and peels, and likewise the almonds.<br />
48247. Do you use the peel without being candied ?-Yes, we use it drained.<br />
48248. Dried fruits you want the duty <strong>of</strong>f, what else ?-Almonds, all kinJs <strong>of</strong> peels, cit.ron, lemon,<br />
and orange peel.<br />
48249. You go beyond the previous witnesses then. They only want the duty <strong>of</strong>f peel in a certain<br />
state?-We import it in the drained state.<br />
48250. And candy it yourself ?-No, we use it as it is.<br />
48251. So if the duty is taken <strong>of</strong>f drained peel it would answer your purpose ?-Yes, as far as our<br />
own trade goes.<br />
48252. What else ?-We commenced with flour and sugar. Butter is another very important thing.<br />
Butter is scarce and clear. It is middling cheap in New Zealand. We have to import, and did last year<br />
and every year import a good deal upon which we pay a duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound. Our articles are particularly<br />
fortunate or unfortunate in being protected by duty.<br />
48253. Is not there an ample supply <strong>of</strong> colonial butter ?-No, butter is scarce and dear.<br />
48254. Does that exhaust the list ?-There is machinery. The tariff upon machinery seems to be<br />
very unfair. Some trades have to pay and others do not. Ours is not one <strong>of</strong> the protected trades, and we<br />
pay 25 per cent. with the 10 per cent. added.<br />
48255. What do you mean by yours not being a protected trade ?-The woollen makers, the paper<br />
makers, and other trades get their machinery in free.<br />
48256. Do you use patent machinery ?-Some might be patented and some not.<br />
48257. Do you make a point <strong>of</strong> that or is it a matter <strong>of</strong> not much importance to you ?-It is a thing<br />
<strong>of</strong> importance ; for <strong>of</strong> course we do not wish to injure other trades, and we would be quite willing that, in<br />
importing machinery, experts should examine and should say whether that class <strong>of</strong> machinery was<br />
manufactured here or could be, and if so, impose a duty, and if not, then we consider it unjust.<br />
48258. What do you reckon to be your annual expenditure upon the purchase <strong>of</strong> machinery-new<br />
plant ?-It is very heavy, but I could not go over it. We are always adding and improving. We have to<br />
get new cutters for biscuits all the time, as they are brought out in other countries.<br />
48259. Are you getting any <strong>of</strong> it made here?-We have a workshop upon our premises. We have<br />
six or seven engineers, still we import a very great deal <strong>of</strong> machinery.<br />
48260. You do an export trade, do not you ?-Yes.<br />
48261. To all the neighbouring colonies?-Yes.<br />
48262. Do you find you can compete with English goods in the neighbouring markets ?-Yes.<br />
48263. Do you account for that partially from the increased cost <strong>of</strong> bringing things a long distance<br />
from home?-Yes, and assisted by the perishable nature <strong>of</strong> the article that we deal in.<br />
48264. The perishable nature <strong>of</strong> the article induces the purchaser to buy from the near market<br />
instead <strong>of</strong> a more distant one ?-Yes.<br />
48265. And you are satisfied that, as far as your own industry is concerned, the removal <strong>of</strong> the 2d.<br />
a pound duty upon the article you manufacture would not affect you ?-No, not a bit. In fact the biscuit<br />
bakers <strong>of</strong> Melbomne have more than once asked the Chief Secretaries and Premiers to take the duty <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
We asked Mr. Service and asked Mr. Berry.<br />
48266. In the event <strong>of</strong> those duties being removed upon the articles you use in your industry, would<br />
the general public, that is, the ultimate constrmers <strong>of</strong> the articles, not the intermediate storekeepers, reap<br />
the benefit. For instance, if the duties were taken <strong>of</strong>f sugar for all the dried fruit, would the reduction <strong>of</strong><br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> your goods be so great that the ultimate consumer would get the benefit?-Yes.<br />
48267. Or would it be simply the intermediate distributer, the shopkeeper, as Mr. Burrows ~aid?<br />
No, it would be a tangible reduction, possibly <strong>of</strong> 10 or 12 per cent.<br />
48268. By Mr. Walker.-What is the amount <strong>of</strong> duties you pay, have you ever calculated what you<br />
pay altogether ?-I have not lately, but upon the fruit, for instance, we pay a great deal, we use an immense<br />
quantity <strong>of</strong> fruit.<br />
48269. Of currants ?-If I had known I could have given you every figure.<br />
48270. You said, in answer to the Chairman, that you spend as much in duties as your wage list<br />
amounted to?-Yes.<br />
48271. Is that a fact ?-I said about as much.<br />
48272. What is about your wage list a year ?-Nearly £500 a week.<br />
48273. Did you ever try to manufacture your articles in bond ?-No.<br />
48274. Did ever you make any application to the Customs ?-No.<br />
48275. Is not that practicable ?-We have frequently thought <strong>of</strong> the matter and talked it over, and<br />
we thought it really was not worth while, with bonds and watchers, and our machinery wanting to be in<br />
general use, it seemed to be hardly possible to separate it and have one portion working in one place alone.<br />
48276. You are aware that numbers <strong>of</strong> industries are carried on in bond under the supervision <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Customs ?-Yes.<br />
48277. You see the difficulty is that most <strong>of</strong> those duties are revenue duties ?-Yes.<br />
48278. And if <strong>Parliament</strong> wanted to relieve your particular industry that would sacrifice the whole<br />
duty ?-Yes.<br />
48279. You do not think it is practicable to manufacture in bond ?-I am afraid not.<br />
48280. Is the machinery you use patented ?-Some might be and some not. We buy from various<br />
makers, English makers. With regard to cutters, I think Vickers' cutters are not patented, but they have<br />
special factories to make them, and they could not be made here.<br />
48281. Have you tried to get those cutters that you refer to made here ?-It would be hardly<br />
:_possible.<br />
48282. Have you tried to get them made here ?-No.
1427<br />
48283. What prevented you from trying, was it a foregone conclusion that they could not be made?-<br />
If we could not get them except out <strong>of</strong> the country, we would not go out <strong>of</strong> our own shops, because if we<br />
sent to a man outside to make for us, he would make for our opponents. much cheaper than for us, having<br />
made the patterns at our cost.<br />
48284. Do I understand you that you cannot get sufficient pollard in Melbourne <strong>of</strong> Melbourne<br />
manufacture ?-I mean that pollard is much cheaper in New Zealand than in Melbourne.<br />
48285. Is there sufficient here for your supply ?-Yes, there is, and if there were ten times as much,<br />
it would be all used one way or other, for it is used for all sorts <strong>of</strong> purposes, feeding and so on.<br />
48286. Then you want the duty <strong>of</strong>f so as to lower the price ?-Yes, I want to buy my raw material<br />
in the cheapest market.<br />
48287. And you consider that your industry, employing such an immense number <strong>of</strong> hands, is very<br />
heavily handicapped by these duties ?-Yes, as we get no advantage.<br />
this chair said he got an advantage from the tariff ; we do not.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Now the last gentleman who sat in<br />
J oseph Henry Walker sworn and examined.<br />
48288. By the ChaiTrnan.-What are you ?-Biscuit manufacturer.<br />
48289. Where is your factory ?-Bourke-street west.<br />
48290. How many hands have you got employed ?-Forty-five in the biscuits, and fifty in jam.<br />
48291. We will take the biscuits now alone. How long have you been established ?-Seven years.<br />
48292. You have heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Swallow~do you agree with it ?-Entirely. The only<br />
point I wish to mention is about the pollard. Our general goods being superior to the other colonies, we are<br />
doing a large trade with the other colonies, excepting in ship bread, for this very reason that we cannot<br />
turn out the ship bread anything near the price the Sydney factories can, and I do not think.Mr. Swallow<br />
laid suffieient stress upon that fact about the supply. We cannot get the sharps here. The mills do<br />
their work better here and there are fewer sharps. There are harclly any sharps here. vVe have to take<br />
fine flour to make common ship bread or we cannot make it at all. I am very <strong>of</strong>ten in Sydney and I cannot<br />
get orders there on account <strong>of</strong> the price.<br />
48293. Then if sharps were admitted free you would be satisfied ?-We should be upon a level then<br />
and could compete with any colony.<br />
48294. You do not want flour free, there is plenty <strong>of</strong> flour here?-Yes.<br />
48295. You entirely agree with Mr. Swallow that the removal <strong>of</strong> the 2d. a pound duty upon biscuits<br />
would not interfere with your industry ?-Not in the slightest.<br />
48296. By 11fr. Zox.-If the sharps were to be admitted free into the country, would it increase<br />
your business ?-Yes. . .<br />
48297. Have you any idea to what extent it would increase the trade <strong>of</strong> the whole colony ?-It is<br />
such a growing business, we could not answer the question. \V e should double and treble and so on.<br />
48298. Would it enable you to employ more hands in your factory ?-Yes.<br />
48299. To what extent do you think ?-I suppose a sixth <strong>of</strong> our whole time is taken up with ship<br />
bread. I think the ship bread trade might easily be trebled.<br />
48300. You are satisfied that if that article were imported here without duty you could successfully<br />
compete with Great Britain and also the other Australian colonies?-Yes.<br />
The witness withdTew.<br />
Thomas Bibby Guest sworn and examined.<br />
48301. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-Biscuit baker.<br />
48302. Where is your factory ?-William-street.<br />
48303. How many years has it been. established ?-Twenty-seven.<br />
48304. How many hands are you employing ?-About ninety.<br />
48305. All at biscuit making ?-Yes.<br />
48306. How many hands had you when you commenced ?-About half-a-dozen.<br />
48307. Do you do an export trade ?-Very little.<br />
48308. Do you agree with the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr, Swallow in relation to the article <strong>of</strong> sharps ?-I do<br />
thoroughly.<br />
48309. You wish to supplement what he said in regard to another matter-what is it ?-In regard<br />
to machinery, there are manufacturers <strong>of</strong> biscuit machinery at home who make this business a speciality,<br />
and as the machinists here cannot make that machinery, I do not think we ought to pay the large duty<br />
levied upon it,<br />
48310. When you say they cannot make them here, what do you mean by "cannot," that they have<br />
not the appliances, or that the machinery is patent and they must not touch it ?-Perhaps both. They begin<br />
by being a patent at home, but the patent runs out. As an instance, I have a machine in my place that cost<br />
in Liverpool £290. I asked an engineer one day what he would make one for. " Well,'' he said, " I would<br />
not make the patterns for £500." ''Well," I said, "what would the machine come to?" "Oh ! goodness<br />
knows, I do not," was his reply ; but I can easily · 1mderstand that the first machine would cost<br />
a manufacturer perhaps a couple <strong>of</strong> thousand poimds, but having a number selling all over the world he<br />
could afford to sell his first machine for £300. A man could not make them here. I have got one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
maimfacturer's lists in my works if you would like to see it-[producing and handing in a papeT ].<br />
Those are cutting machines and other machines. There are machines there running up to £7 50 a piece.<br />
48311. Patent travelling ovens, are those the sort <strong>of</strong> ovens you use ?-Those are the sort I use.<br />
48312. Then we understand you to endorse the evidence o£ previous witnesses, that special machinery<br />
used in your trade, and for which there is very little demand in the, colony, and that ·could not be made<br />
here at a reasonable price, should be admitted free ?-Yes, it would not possibly be worth the while <strong>of</strong> any<br />
machinist here to make them.<br />
48313. How long would a machine last you ?-Possibly five or six years, ancl then it would be cheaper<br />
to have a new one than to have it renovated.<br />
48314. What would be the total duty upon this machine ?-27! per cent. re the tariff as at<br />
present.<br />
T, Swallow,<br />
contimted,<br />
lat Ma.y 1888,<br />
J. EL Walker,<br />
lst May 1883.<br />
T.B. Guest,<br />
lst May 188i.f,
T. B. Guest,<br />
continUR.d.<br />
lst May 1883.<br />
1428<br />
48315. And that would last five years you say ?-Five or six: years probably.<br />
48316. That is £15 a year the duty would copt you upon that ?-That is only on one machine.<br />
48317. About what is the value <strong>of</strong> your phmt you have imported and p:ctid dutyupun ?-The plant<br />
at present is about £6,000 or £7,000.<br />
48318. Has it all been imported?-Whatever I can get made here I do.<br />
48319. Has any part <strong>of</strong> this £7,000 worth been made here ?-I think it is about £6,500-the total<br />
cost.<br />
4B320. Has any part <strong>of</strong> that been made here ?-Yes, whatever we coulcl get made here.<br />
48321. What proportion <strong>of</strong> that do you think-£2,000 ?-I do not know ; it would be only shafting<br />
and driving pulleys, and hangers and fix:ings <strong>of</strong> that sort.<br />
48322. £5,000 you may say has been imported ?-Yes.<br />
48323. Can you inform the Commission what is the value <strong>of</strong> yom output for twelve months ?<br />
I suppose about £30,000 a year.<br />
48324. By the Hon. 1Wr. Lorimer.-Cculd you describe the machinery in such a way as to prevent<br />
any frauds upon the Custom-house, so that the Customs might pass it in free <strong>of</strong> duty, without risk <strong>of</strong> being<br />
defrauded. Is biscuit machinery known by any particular name ?-I do not see how, because those<br />
machines have originally been patents, but the patent runs out, and they cannot call them any longer patent.<br />
They are c~lled patent machines in that catalogue.<br />
48325. You are aware that a great deal <strong>of</strong> machinery is manufactured here. You tell us that the<br />
machinery imported by biscuit makers is not made here. Cannot you describe it so that it could be easily<br />
distinguished from other machinery that is made here ?-There might be a difficulty there, because a man<br />
might say "I could make a biscuit-cutting machine," but a biscuit cutting machine may be a very simple<br />
machine that could be made, but when you get a complicated machine that cuts the biscuits, separates<br />
the dough from the biscuits and puts them upon the tray, and does all this automatically, it is a superior<br />
machine. ·<br />
48326. Do you think you biscuit manufacturers could lay your heads together and send us any list<br />
<strong>of</strong> special articles that ought to be admitted free <strong>of</strong> duty ?-I think so.<br />
48327. Will you try and do it and send us in a list ?-Yes.<br />
48328. By Mr. Munro.-When those things came from England, and were examined at the<br />
Customs, how would you decide whether they came in within the list that you drew up, for every one<br />
would come and say-" This is a patent machine," it could be pointed out with certain specialities it ought<br />
to come under that heading ?-I do not know how the woollen manufacturers ha\'e to describe theirs, but if<br />
we make affidavit that they are for manufacturing biscuits, either for cutting biscuits, mixing the dough,<br />
or for passing them through the furnace by machinery, we could make affidavits to that effect, and show the<br />
price lists and invoice.<br />
48329. By the Chairman.-! understand you have undertaken to endeavour to frame a list, so that<br />
the Customs can distinguish between your machinery and other machinery?-Yes.<br />
48330. If you will send that in we will consider it.<br />
At the request <strong>of</strong> Mr. Black, the Chairman stated that the Commission would be very glad to<br />
receive the same information from the confectioners.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
John Oonlan,<br />
lst ll:lay 1883.<br />
John Conlan sworn and examined.<br />
48331. By the Chairman.-What are you ?--Journeyman baker.<br />
48332. How many years have you been a journeyman baker ?-Thirty-three years.<br />
48333. Where were you apprenticed ?-In the city <strong>of</strong> Dublin.<br />
48334. How long have you been in the colony ?-I am in this colony about fifteen years, I am going<br />
on nineteen years altogether.<br />
48335. How many years have you followed your trade as a journeyman baker in this colony ?<br />
Fifteen years.<br />
48336. For whom are you working at the present time ?-Mr. Knight, in Canning-street, Carlton.<br />
48337. You are here to-day as one o1 the three repre8entatives from the Operative Bakers' Society,<br />
I believe ?-Yes.<br />
48338. How many members does that society contain ?-Over 300, I do not know the exa
'1429<br />
Frederick Kennon sworn and examined.<br />
F. Kennon,<br />
1st lll~y 1,883.<br />
48350. B.l/ tlte Clwirman.-What are you ?-I am a baker, a general baker all round. ·<br />
48351. ~tlnd a biscuit bahr ?-A biscuit baker also. I have heard Mr. Swallow's evidence, and I<br />
heard Mr. Guest's evidence, and I quite coincide with them that the dutv should be taken <strong>of</strong>f biscuits and<br />
Qff sugar, and we could compete with any imported goods out, and I shot{lcllike to see some English goods<br />
come out, and show us the latest designs to make those biscuits.<br />
48352. By Mr. Walker.-So that you could copy them ?-So that I could copy them. ·<br />
48353. By the Chairman.-You ~were going to tell the Commission the way in which the tariff<br />
affected yon as an operative biscuit baker r:--rn the first place, Mr. Swallow--<br />
. 48354. Never mind about Mr. Swallow ?-The simple thing any way, I thlnk the whole tariff<br />
upon biscuits, sugar, and everything should be swept away.<br />
48355. Does the tariff upon biscuits affect you as an operative baker, does it make your wages any<br />
less or any more ?-I should think I could do more business i£ the tariff were taken away. ·<br />
48356. You are under the impression that if the duty were removed from biscuits there would be<br />
more work for operative biscuit bakers ?-Yes.<br />
48357. Notwithstanding that biscuits would be imported if the duty were <strong>of</strong>f ?-I think the colonials<br />
could beat any imported, but we want to see all the new designs. I speak as a biscuit baker.<br />
48358. Have you anything further to add to that ?-Nothing further to add.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
PRESERVED MILK.<br />
Charles George Turner sworn and examined.<br />
48359. By the Chairman.-You are here as the representative <strong>of</strong> what company?-The Heidelberg<br />
Cheese and Condensed Milk Company.<br />
48360. When was this company formed ?-About eighteen months ago.<br />
48361. How many hands are you employing?-When we are working fully we employ about thirty<br />
altogether.<br />
48362. How many <strong>of</strong> those are engaged at the condensed milk business ?-About fifteen to eighteen.<br />
That is directly employed, <strong>of</strong> course a good many are indirectly employed, a good many making tins and<br />
cases, and so on, and in carting backwards and forwards to the factory.<br />
48363. In relation to the cheese part <strong>of</strong> your business, does the tariff interfere with you, or help you<br />
in any way ?-The tariff has helped the cheese industry, inasmuch as it has enabled us to get this market,<br />
and we can now command foreign markets. The bulk <strong>of</strong> the cheese we make is exported, very little<br />
comes into this market at all, it is principally sent to Queensland.<br />
48364. What duty do you pay upon it when it gets to Queensland ?-I think 2d. a pound, I am not<br />
sure <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
You see we do not pay the duty, we sell the cheE>se to the Queensland people.<br />
48365 . .And they have to pay the duty upon it ?-I presume so, if there is a duty there.<br />
48366. It i8 2d. a pound in Queensland ?-Ye~.<br />
48367. Do you send any toW estern Australia ?-I do not think we have done.<br />
48368. Do you send any to New Zealand ?-No, Kew Zealand is our chief competitor in Queensland.<br />
She produces a large quantity <strong>of</strong> cheese.<br />
48369. Do you wish to say anything about the duty on cheese ?-No.<br />
48370. Are you satisfied with it as it is?-We are quite satisfied with it.<br />
48371. If the duty upon cheese were removed, what would be its effect on you ?-I do not think it<br />
would have any effeet. It would no.t do us any harm, but we are indepenclent <strong>of</strong> the duty. The duty made<br />
the cheese trade, but we are now independent <strong>of</strong> the duty, and if the duty were removed we should not<br />
suffer by it.<br />
48372. Are not you under the impression that the New Zealand cheese would compete with you in<br />
this market, as well as in the Queensland market, if the duty were removed ?-It might to some extent,<br />
but not to any great extent. Yo.u see we can meet them in the Queensland market where we are upon<br />
equal terms, we can hold our own there, and sell upon equal terms. .<br />
48373. Which has the advantage in distance <strong>of</strong> carriage, you or New Zealand ?-It is about the<br />
same. They ship most <strong>of</strong> theirs by way <strong>of</strong> Sydney, and the distance is about the same.<br />
4"8374. What else do you make beside condensed milk and cheese ?-Nothing else, our trade is<br />
confined to those two. We intend to go into the butter trade, but have not done so as yet.<br />
48375. In relation to the condensed milk, what do you ask the Commission for in relation to that?<br />
-We commenced about twelve months ago to make condensed milk. We sent to America and got the<br />
best machinery we eould get, which cost £2,272, and we got the best man we could, at a very large salary,<br />
to work the business. We put up a place at Yarra Flats, and it cost us from first to last about £5,000.<br />
Upon the machinery, which cost us £2,272, we paid duty to the amount <strong>of</strong> £256 9s. 8d. We have got<br />
it in working 0rder now, and we are able, if >Ye were working fully, to put through the machinery 2,000<br />
gallons <strong>of</strong> milk per day. We could condense that quantity if we were able to get rid <strong>of</strong> the stuff. That<br />
is equal to bet.ween 5,000 and 6,000 tins <strong>of</strong> milk per working clay.<br />
48376. What are you condensing now?-Nothing at all at present. We worked for some time.<br />
We did not work up to our full capacity, but pretty near it, and our stock accumulated, and we had to stay<br />
our hands, because we could not sell it fast enough. We have to compete with the imported artiele.<br />
48377. Is there a demand for it at all ?-Yes.<br />
48378. But not fast enough to take <strong>of</strong>f your stock as fast as you make it ?-That is how it is.<br />
48379. Could not you have met that by a reduction in the price <strong>of</strong> the raw material, the milk?-<br />
No, you see the price <strong>of</strong> milk is regulated by the cheese. We cannot <strong>of</strong>fer them less than the price it is<br />
worth for cheese-making, or other people get it. I was going to explain why we have not worked up to<br />
our full quantity. There is an air <strong>of</strong> uncertainty about it. In order to keep us going we must have a<br />
thousand cows fully going, and the farmers will not do that unless they see the thing established upon a<br />
C. G. Turner,<br />
lst May 1883.
(l. G. Tlll'D.er,<br />
.~<br />
bt MA7l88ll.<br />
1430<br />
certain basis. They will not put the cows there for fear we should not be able to sell our product, and then<br />
we could not take the milk. One man is ready to put on200 cows if we would take the milk for two years.<br />
48380. Surely you would not want a thousand cows to give 2,000 gallons a day ?-I do not know,<br />
that is what the manager tells me we shall want upon the average.<br />
48381. What duty do you ask for?-In condensing the milk a quantity <strong>of</strong> sugar is used. If<br />
we work up to the full capacity we should use something like 250 tons sugar per annilln, upon which<br />
the duty is £3 a ton. That makes £750 a year in duty upon sugar alone.<br />
48382.' If we removed the duty upon sugar would not that answer the same purpose as putting on<br />
the duty upon milk ?-I do not know, I should prefer a duty upon the milk.<br />
48383. Do you use Queensland sugar ?-No, the best Mauritius.<br />
48384. If we could come to an arrangement with the Queensland Government to let in their sugar<br />
free on condition they let in the articles we are making ?-I do not know that we have used any Queensland<br />
sugar. It may have been used, but I do not know it.<br />
4S385. What duty do you ask upon the milk ?-I think 2d. a pound.<br />
48386. Is this a pound tin-[ taking up a sample] ?-Yes, that is a pound tin.<br />
4S387. What is the retail price <strong>of</strong> a pound tin <strong>of</strong> the imported article ?-Eightpence or 9d., I think,<br />
is the retail price.<br />
4S3S8. This imported article sold at Sd. or 9d. puts you out <strong>of</strong> the market you say ?-It does at<br />
present. It is not exactly the price as much as the prejudice against the colonial article. I want the<br />
duty more to enable us to get the market for a time. I am satisfied that if people only use our article once<br />
it will hold them, if we once get them ; but at present the imported article has the lead, and it is very difficult<br />
to introduce our article here.<br />
483S9. At what price can you put your article without any duty at all upon the market, at what<br />
price would it pay you to sell your article ?-Say 6s. 6d. to 7s.<br />
4S390. That is your wholesale price ?-Yes.<br />
48391. If you could sell wholesale to shopkeepers at 6s. 6d., it would be sure to sell at Std. ?-They<br />
would sell, I presume, at 8d. the same as the imported, but we are met with the fact that the English is<br />
known and has repute, and people will not take ours, they will not try it. That is what we want protection<br />
for. We want it to make them try the article. Personally I should be satisfied perfectly with a period <strong>of</strong><br />
. two or three years' protection. I am satisfied then we could hold the market.<br />
4S392. It is not a question <strong>of</strong> price, but the difficulty <strong>of</strong> getting the public to try yours while it<br />
establishes its reputation ?-That is it, at the same time I think we are well entitled to protection, seeing we<br />
paid duty upon our machinery, and that all other milk productions are protected.<br />
48393. Do you have the tins made in the colonies ?-Yes.<br />
4S394. Is this a limited company?-Yes. If we could get this market I may say that we should be<br />
able to do a great deal more and extend our works co:p.siderably. If we could once get the <strong>Victoria</strong>n market,<br />
we could command the whole <strong>of</strong> the colonial markets from here.<br />
48395. Do you anticipate doing an export trade as well as a local trade when this is established?<br />
Yes, we hope so, but we want to feel our footing firm here, and get a reputation and feel we have a certainty<br />
to work upon. ·<br />
48396. Have you anything else to say?-Nothing more.<br />
48397. By Mr. MointyTe.-If you got the duties <strong>of</strong>f the articles you require in the way <strong>of</strong> machinery,<br />
and <strong>of</strong>f sugar, would not that be sufficient protection to you ?-It would be in a way, but it would not answer<br />
the purpose I have in view, which is more to get the market for a while, to get people to try our article.<br />
48398. Are not you getting the market now fairly ?-We are, but very slowly, there is a great<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> prejudice against this kind <strong>of</strong> thing. A great deal <strong>of</strong> this is used for children and babies, and<br />
so on.<br />
48399. Your view <strong>of</strong> getting a market would be one got by prohibition ?-No, I do not say that for<br />
a moment. I say if you put a duty upon the imported article, I am quite satisfied we shall be able to hold<br />
the market against all makers.<br />
48400. What is the price <strong>of</strong> the imported article ?-About Ss.<br />
48401. What is the price <strong>of</strong> yours ?-About 6s. 6d. is the cost <strong>of</strong> that.<br />
4S402. If it were imported, it is Ss. ?-No, the imported sells retail at 8s.<br />
48403. What is the wholesale price <strong>of</strong> the imported article, this size ?-Seven shillings, as far as<br />
I know.<br />
48404. And the wholesale price <strong>of</strong> the colonial article is how much ?-Six shillings and sixpence.<br />
48405. As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact then, you sell cheaper than the imported article ?-Yes.<br />
48406. Is not that sufficient to take away the prejudice ?-No, it is not.<br />
48407. What do you ask as a protection ?-Twopence a pound, like butter and cheese and all other<br />
milk-manufactured articles.<br />
4S40S. You sell this at 6s. 6d. ?-Yes.<br />
4S409. It would be 6s. 8d., suppose there is 2d. duty ?-That would bring the price from 6id. to<br />
· S!d.<br />
48410. Would that be to keep out the imported article ?-It would be enough to induce the<br />
consumers to try our article, and if once they do, I will take the risk <strong>of</strong> keeping them.<br />
48411. Have you had this article analyzed or compared with the imported article ?-It has not been<br />
analyzed, it has been compared. ·<br />
48412. What is the result <strong>of</strong> the comparison ?-That it is quite equal.<br />
48413. Would it not be enough for you· to convey that fact to the public mind by advertisement,<br />
as other tradesmen do?-Yes, but you must remember this is a company, and the directors do not like<br />
to be always telling the shareholders to look for something in the future, and shareholders do not like this<br />
hope deferred, and so on. And besides you must remember that the expenses are very great, so long as<br />
you are not working up to full work.<br />
48414. How many years do you think you would be before you were able to do without this duty?<br />
-Personally, I would not think <strong>of</strong> asking for a clut,r for more than three years at the outside.<br />
The witness withdrew.
1431<br />
Gillman Goodrich Pearce sworn and examined.<br />
48415. By the Chainnan.-What are you ?-I am a manufucturer <strong>of</strong> cheese upon the factory system.<br />
I am the manager. <strong>of</strong> two companies: cheese making and condensed milk making.<br />
·· 48416. Have you heard the evidence o:f Mr. Turner in relation to the condensed milk business?-<br />
Partially. I was out when he commenced.<br />
48417. Mr. Turner's evidence goes to the effect <strong>of</strong><br />
milk, .in order to seek a market against the prejudice-does<br />
opinion we ought to have it in order to get a start here.<br />
article equally good it is very hard to get it going.<br />
for a duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound upon condensed<br />
agree with your experience ?-In my<br />
I find difficulty in starting, and selling an<br />
48418. Are you manager for this company that Mr. Turner represents ?-I am.<br />
48419. And manager :for some other compapy ?-I am manager <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Victoria</strong> Cheese and Butter<br />
Factory, also <strong>of</strong> Myrniong and Bacchus l\:Iarsh. .<br />
48420. How long have you been making condensed milk in the colony ?-Since last November.<br />
48421. Not before that at all ?-Not before that at all.<br />
48422. Are you aware that there used to be a duty on condensed milk ?-I am not.<br />
48423. Some years ago there was a duty on, and it was taken <strong>of</strong>f?-I was not aware <strong>of</strong> that.<br />
48424. Have you anything to add to the evidence Mr. Turner has given us ?-As regards the price<br />
we have sold our milk for, the rate has been 6s. 6d. with 10 per cent. <strong>of</strong>f, and it has been very hard to sell<br />
at that price. People will take the Swiss milk in preference to ours, although everyone who tries it pronounces<br />
ours the best, because it is fresher and newer-not that it is better made, but the imported is<br />
neioessai·ily older when it gets here and is stale.<br />
Have you had any analysis made by experts?-We have not had any analysis made at all.<br />
4H4.26. Would not that be a good way to give it a stn.rt ?-We did not think so; we considered the<br />
matter and concluded that people that used it would judge <strong>of</strong> its quality themselves.<br />
48427. But to get people to use it in the first instance, if they have an analysis by experts ?<br />
I have bought milk here made by another company and analysed by two experts, chemists here, with their<br />
names upou the label, recommending it as a superior article, and it was the worst milk I ever opened, and<br />
that was one reason we did not analyse.<br />
4tl428. Have you anything further to add ?-I do not think <strong>of</strong> ... mnnmo- more. But I do think we<br />
are entitled to protection for many reasons. It is the policy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
protect home industries,<br />
and especially new industries, I think we should have help to start. When we get on our legs all right, we<br />
can do without it.<br />
[The witness opened and exhibited samples qf imported condensed mill!. and the article manufactured<br />
by the Company.]<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Adjourned to to-morrow, at Two o'clock.<br />
G, G. Pea.rce,<br />
1st May 1883.<br />
WEDNESDAY, 2ND MAY, 1883.<br />
Present:<br />
JAMES MIRAMs, Esq., M.L.A., in the Chair;<br />
The Hon. G. Meares, }I.L.C., -~ F. S. Grimwade, Esq.,<br />
D. Muuro, Esq., J. Mcintyre, Esq., M.L.A.<br />
E. L. Zox, M.L.A.,<br />
Samuel Capper sworn and examined.<br />
48429. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-Manufacturer <strong>of</strong> oilmen's stores, &c. samueiCappe 1<br />
.-<br />
48430. The particular item upon which you wish to give evidence just now is condensed milk, I 2nd May 1883.'<br />
believe ?-Yes.<br />
48431. Have you been long a manufacturer <strong>of</strong> condensed milk ?-No, we have not got as far as<br />
erecting a plant. I do not know the manufacturing part <strong>of</strong> it, that is as far as the machinery part goes; I<br />
know the manual, and the other, theoretically.<br />
48432. Have you got any machinery erected ?-No.<br />
48433. Then you have not got into it yet; you only intend to do so ?-I have gone into it manually<br />
and proved it practicable, but have not worked the machinery practically. ,<br />
4.8434.. What do you desire to say to the Commission ?-I do not know exactly what information is<br />
required.<br />
48435. You know what you wish in the matter ?-In reference to the 2d. a pound duty which was<br />
taken <strong>of</strong>f three or four years ago, that should be put on again.<br />
48436. You did not hear the evidence given yesterday ?-No, I was not here.<br />
4.8437. Have you read it in this morning's papers ?-I just casually glanced over it; but what I say<br />
now I made up my mind to two years , .<br />
48438. That is what they for-you endorse that request ?-Decidedly, for as it is now the<br />
outlet is so small that unless there is a differential duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. there would be no pr<strong>of</strong>it in the manufacture.<br />
48439. Have you made calculation <strong>of</strong> what the probable trade in the article would be?-<br />
I have no idea except from the return.<br />
48440. What is the amount consumed ?-In 1881 I believe it was something like 250,000 llb. tins<br />
in a year, and I should say that has<br />
increased since then. ,I should~say about 300,000 tins per<br />
annum.<br />
484.4.1. Is that all you have to say upon the condensed milk question ?-Yes, I think that is all, the<br />
2d. duty is the most important item.<br />
484.42. 400,000 was the quantity last year ?-It might have been 1880 that I referred to, I have<br />
not looked lately.
Samuel Capper,<br />
continued,<br />
2m1 ll:f•Y: 1883,<br />
1432<br />
48443. By ~Jr. ~fcintyre.-Who »,re the principali consumers <strong>of</strong> this class <strong>of</strong> milk' ?-I see it in all<br />
the stores. I believe about one-fourt.h <strong>of</strong> all that comes into the colony is exported to other colonies, and then<br />
a great deal is used in supplying ships. A considerable quantity goes all over the country and the suburbs<br />
too.<br />
48444. Is there much, to your knowledge, consumed by the poorer classes <strong>of</strong> the community ?-I<br />
think a considerable quantity is.<br />
48445. And you wish to tax them to a tune <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound more than they pay now ?-I think it<br />
would not pay without it.<br />
· 48446. What reason have you to think it would not; you are just starting the business ?-I know<br />
about it theoretically. I know what it would cost and what it can be sold for.<br />
48447. If you know all about it practically never mind the theory. Why do you ask for 2d. a<br />
pound being put upon it ?-Because, from the limited use <strong>of</strong> it, it will not pay without it.<br />
48448. But the consumption is so enormous, how can you say the consumption is limited ?-300,000<br />
is very little for a large place like <strong>Victoria</strong>.<br />
48449. Why do you ask 2d. a pound ?-I think it would pay better, and there would be a larger<br />
consumption. _<br />
48450. And it would be larger still if there was 6d. ?-I think 6d. would be too much to ask.<br />
48451. Why did not one person come forward as manufacturer when there was 2cl. a pound?<br />
I cannot sav.<br />
48452. But as soon as it was taken <strong>of</strong>f they came forward ?-Yes.<br />
48453. By Mr. Grimwade.-Do you know the English value <strong>of</strong> it ?-I do not know the price there, I<br />
know the price here about.<br />
- 48454. What is it ?-I should say about 7s.<br />
48455. It is worth in England about 22s. a case ?-Four dozen, 5s. 6d.?<br />
48456. Yes ?-I should say that is about the value.<br />
48457. Then you want a duty <strong>of</strong> over one-third upon it ?-There is that much upon many other<br />
articles vou could name.<br />
484 58. ''Ne are not speaking about other articles. You want a duty <strong>of</strong> over a third on the value <strong>of</strong><br />
milk ?-Whatever that would come to.<br />
48459. Have you seen the milk that has been made here already ?-I have.<br />
_ 48460. Have you seen any <strong>of</strong> it fermented ?-I have. I have seen some I would not a shilling<br />
a ton for. The 2d. a pound duty would not make much difference to the demand and supply.<br />
48461. Do not you think the fact <strong>of</strong> there being ample p;;;,stures here and milk being as cheap as it<br />
is ample protection if you know how to make it?-It is the cost <strong>of</strong> condensing. Milk costs a great deal<br />
less here than at home.<br />
48462. How much-have you any idea how many hands would be employed in making it ?-In this<br />
colony?<br />
48463. Yes ?-I think not a great number.<br />
48464. Have you any idea. If you supply all the milk that is made in the colony, how many would<br />
be employed in it ?-I never made a calculation. I do not think over 100.<br />
48465. Would it be fifty, do you think ?-I think it might be.<br />
48-!G6. Would it be twentv-five?-I am sure it would be more.<br />
48467. Why ?--Labelling" alone would occupy that.<br />
48468. You must know, as a manufacturer, that 400,000 tins would not take to turn them out above<br />
twenty-five hands ?-1 believe it would take at least fifty.<br />
48469. 400,000 tins ?-Yes ; they m1ght not be always employed, you see, because some that 1tre<br />
employed in condensing are not doing it the whole twelve hours.<br />
48470. Do you know why the duty was taken <strong>of</strong>f 7-I do not know, but I believe it was because no<br />
manufacturers came forward.<br />
48471. And it was represented to Mr. Lalor (I think it was he) at the time, that this preserved<br />
milk, condensed milk, was used entirely by poor people, and this 2d. a pound on it was a very serious tax,<br />
as being over a third <strong>of</strong> the price more than England ?-[No answer. J<br />
48472. By 1Wr. Zox.-Who uses the milk ?-I am not in business now, and cannot say.<br />
48473. If you are not in business now, why do yon desire to come here and give evidence about 2d.<br />
a pound ?-I do not know that I desire it. I got an invitation to come and give evidence. I should be<br />
very glad if I had not. I was in it up to a few months ago-till the factory was burned down a few<br />
months ago.<br />
·18474. How long were you in this trade in Melbourne ?-About seven years, but not in that<br />
particular article.<br />
48475. Do you come and tell the Commission that in the event <strong>of</strong> 2c1. a pound being placed upon<br />
this condensed milk, it is your intention to go into business ?-I do not say that; not in that article.<br />
4847G. Are you in any shape or way interested in a duty being placed upon condensed milk ?-Only<br />
prospectively; it is quite likely I may go into it, but it is not from any interest that I have in it at present<br />
that I speak. I am asked my opinion, and I say it is my opinion that 2d. is a reasonable duty.<br />
48477. Do the cows, in proportion, give as much milk here as at home ?.-I do not know.<br />
48478. Is the grass equally nutritious here as at home ?-I think it is good enough for that<br />
purpose.<br />
48479. If we have as good grass and as good cows, why do you think it is necessary to have 2d.<br />
a pound upon the milk ?-Because <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> getting it up. 'The wages here are very much higher<br />
than in Switzerland and other places where it is made.<br />
48480. You are thoroughly disinterested in asking for this duty ?-Quite.<br />
48481. You have no intention <strong>of</strong> going into the business to manufacture it. ?-I may or may not.<br />
I do not think it would induce anyone to go into it who was not in it alreadv, but it would be a great<br />
assistance to them.<br />
•<br />
48482. Is not the milk principally used for export to go on board ship ?-I believe there is a large<br />
export, I do not know how much; but I believe a fourth <strong>of</strong> all that is imported is exported to other colonies,<br />
and a large quantity is supplied to shipping in Melbourne.
1433<br />
48483. Who uses condensed milk in the colony <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> ?-It is sold in the various shops; I do<br />
not know who uses it, I am sure. I see it in nearly every shop I look into.<br />
48484. To whom wmilcl yon sell this milk if yon were it ?-:-To storekeepers.<br />
48485. To whom w.ould they sell i.t ?-I do not know. I would sell wholesale for export and retail<br />
to the storekeepers.<br />
48486. Will you say honestly you will not go into it ir this duty is put on ?-I would not; but I<br />
introduced it, and I took a silver medal for it when I exhibited it; and if I do not know about it nobody<br />
else does.<br />
48487. By Mr. Grimwade.-You said just now you would do 400,000 tins and employ fifty people.<br />
Suppose you gave those people £2 a week, that is £5,000 a should be sorry to give many <strong>of</strong> them<br />
so much, young girls and boys. I do not say fifty men, I am sure it would not take fifty men.<br />
48488. By lrlr.llfcintyre.-Wonld it average a pound a week wages ?-Certainly not, it would not<br />
average more than 15s. a week; the greater number would be young people.<br />
48489. Do you know how much it would come to in labor at 15s. a week, it would be SOf!Iething<br />
over a penny a tin?-[ No answer. J<br />
48490. By Mr. Munro.-When did you manufacture this milk ?-I only manufactured a little to<br />
start the thing about fifteen months ago, and if we had continued we should have put up machinery to<br />
manufacture it ; but the place was burned down.<br />
48491. Did you exhibit this milk at the Exhibition ?-I did; I was the first to introduce it,<br />
48492. So that you have a knowledge <strong>of</strong> it though you are not in the business ?-I was the first<br />
to introduce it as a manufacturer into the colony, and I exhibited it at the Exhibition.<br />
48493. By 111r. Zox.-How much did you manufacture altogether ?-Simply enough for the<br />
exhibits.<br />
48494. Then in point <strong>of</strong> fact all the condensed milk you manufactured in the eolony <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> has<br />
only been to exhibit it at the Exhibition ?-.And to send round.<br />
48495. How many tins did you manufactnre ?-I could not tell you.<br />
48496. Have you made a thousand tins ?-I do not know how many dozen I made; about thii·ty or<br />
forty dozen.<br />
48497. You made 480 tins altogether ?-Perhaps about that.<br />
48498. By JJfr. Munro.-Was it the want <strong>of</strong> a duty that prevented you going into this ?-No, it<br />
would pay a fair pr<strong>of</strong>it, a small pr<strong>of</strong>it without any duty; but then the outlet is so limited it would be a very<br />
$mall pr<strong>of</strong>it"<br />
48499. Would the consumers get the benefi.t <strong>of</strong> it if this was put on-would not they have to pay<br />
so much more for it ?-Not unless the imported article is used ..<br />
48500. By .b'lr. Grimwade.-How do you arrive at the employment <strong>of</strong> fifty hands ?-I never made<br />
any calculation <strong>of</strong> how many hands it wmtld take to produce the whole quantity.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Samn~l d•tpper,<br />
eontin~d,<br />
·2nd May !88a.<br />
CANDLEs AND SoAP.<br />
J olm .Ambrose Kitchen sworn and examined.<br />
48501. By the Ghairman.-You represent the firm <strong>of</strong> J. Kitchen and Sons?-Yes.<br />
48502. vvnere are your :works situatecl ?-Sandridge.<br />
48503. How long have you been established ?-About twenty-five years.<br />
48504. How many hands are you employing now ?-I do not care to answer that question unless it<br />
is strictly necessary.<br />
' 48505. Every other manufacturer has answered it. We never had any objection ?-If you wish it,<br />
<strong>of</strong> course I will answer it, but I would rather not. I have no particular objection if you wish it.<br />
48506. Very well, will you tell. us ?-From 200 to 300 hands directly at the works; but I do not<br />
mean by that that that is the number employed upon the industries, because there would be a munber<br />
employed indirectly in making cases and in varions ways.<br />
48507. Those are the hands in the factory ?-Yes.<br />
48508. Do you employ any females ?-A few-very few-five per cent. perhaps.<br />
48509. How many <strong>of</strong> the male are uncler eighteen ?-Perhaps thirty.<br />
48510 . .Are they apprentices<br />
48511. You do not take apprentices we do not take apprentices.<br />
48512. You pay wages from the commencement?-Yes.<br />
48513. Have you any diffi.eulty in getting lads ?-Yes, the last year or two, the last twelve months<br />
particularly-great difficulty-that is why we have gone on to girls to some extent. We are getting girls<br />
now because there was so much difficulty in getting boys.<br />
48514. Have the wages <strong>of</strong> the boys increased in consequence ?-Considerably; they have quite<br />
doubled, I think.<br />
48515. What are you paying now, to begin with ?-I should think from about 15s.<br />
48516. To start with?-Yes, from 12s. to 15s. to start with.<br />
48517 • .And you used to get them at from 6s. to 7s. Gel. ?-,.Yes.<br />
48518. Do you remember the date at which the duty was impose(lupon candles ?-No, I cannot say<br />
that.<br />
48519. Have you noticed any effect produced upon your industry by the alterations in the Tariff?<br />
There was 1d. put on, I think, in 1862 as far as I recollect.<br />
48520. It was in 1867 ?-.A year or two after, as far as I recollect, we commenced making stearine<br />
candles in a very small way. ,<br />
48521. That would be about 1869 ?-Can you inform me when the 'duty was increased?<br />
48522. It was increased in 1871, from Id. to 2d. ?-It would be about 1869 that we commenced in<br />
a very small way, and we.kept on for about twelve months, but the loss was so that we did not<br />
continue it.<br />
48523. What did you manufacture then ?-I am speaking now specially <strong>of</strong> stearine candles.<br />
TaRIFF,<br />
8 T<br />
John A. Kitchen,<br />
2nd 1\Jny 1883,
Joh~~~;ten,<br />
2 nd Ma,- 1883<br />
1434<br />
48524. When you gave up making stearine candles, because the loss would not allow you to do it<br />
, any longer, what did you make then-did you confine yourself principally to soap ?-Principally to soap<br />
and tallow candles ; and immediately upon the duty being doubled, we we ut into it in a larger way.<br />
48525. That was in 1871 ?-Yes.<br />
48526. Then as the industry went on---?-It gradually increased from that date ; each year<br />
there has been an increase.<br />
48527. Has the industry been firmly established now?-Yes.<br />
48528. Could you do with a reduction in dnty now ?-No.<br />
48529. What would be the effect if the duty were to be put back to the Id. per pound it was<br />
originally at ?-It would close our factories ; we could not possibly keep on with the Id. duty. Taking<br />
the pr<strong>of</strong>its for the last ten years, for· instance, this department would have come out at a considerable loss,<br />
with Id. taken <strong>of</strong>f. Do you catch what I mean?<br />
48530. I do. This portion <strong>of</strong> your business, the stem·ine candle portion, would have shown a loss<br />
the last ten years ?-Since its commencement.<br />
''48531. If it had been Id. instead <strong>of</strong> 2d. ?-Yes. Since the imposition <strong>of</strong> the 2d. duty, since we<br />
commenced making them in a large way, it would have been a loss, we could not have stood it.<br />
48532. Your conviction is that if this duty were lowerecl to ld. it would close the factory, and<br />
these 300 hands would be put out <strong>of</strong> employment?-Yes, that portion <strong>of</strong> the 300 hands that is employed<br />
in the candle department.<br />
48533. Do you do an export tracle ?-Not in candles.<br />
48534. No candles ?-It is only nominal.<br />
48535. And when you do export, to which colony do you send, principally ?-Our exports, the last<br />
few years, have been merely a very few candles to Tasmania, but it is a mere nothing. It is just a<br />
particular kind <strong>of</strong> candle that they cannot get there that we supply them with. But it is nothing to<br />
speak <strong>of</strong>.<br />
48536. How many pounds <strong>of</strong> candles do you reckon to turn out in a month or a year now ?-I think<br />
it wouhl be undesirable to answer that ; have you any particular wish for it?<br />
48537. If it is one <strong>of</strong> your trade secrets, we have no wish to press it ?-I think you can get<br />
the traile number, and about the quantities by taking the imports before the duties were imposed, and then<br />
taking the proportion <strong>of</strong> imports now.<br />
48538. We should have to find out how much the local consumption has increased in the meantime?<br />
-Yes.<br />
48539. Who are the principal customers for your candles, outside the domestic comsumption ?-The<br />
mines.<br />
48540. Is there as much demand for stearine candles in the mines now as there was before the duty<br />
was imposetl ?-More, I would think.<br />
48541. Do you think there is more quartz mining now than there was then ?-I think the demand<br />
for candles for mines has increased, certainly.<br />
48542. Has the price <strong>of</strong> candles increased since you were manufacturing them ?-Since the 2d.<br />
duty?<br />
48543. Yes ?-No; decreased.<br />
48544. What was the price before the duty was imposed in 1871 ?-I could not sn,y, but I hn,ve<br />
known them up to Is. !d.<br />
48545. Retail price ?-No wholesale price; Is. ld. at all events. I speak from memory, but I<br />
think I am correct.<br />
48546. What is the wholesale price now ?-At the moment they are very much clearer, they would<br />
be about 1 Od.; that imported candles.<br />
48547. I am not speaking about the imported', I am speaking about the colonial-made ?-The candle<br />
that we make we have various prices for ; we have four different qualities <strong>of</strong> candles that would come into<br />
competition with the imported. Our present maximum price is \:l~d.<br />
48548. And the imported price IOd.?-lOd. to lO!d.<br />
48549. And then there is 2d. duty to pay upon that ?-No, that is duty paid.<br />
48550. That is without the duty ?-About that.<br />
48551. And those prices, you say, are higher than ordinary ?-Very much higher.<br />
48552. What is the orclinary market price for those two qualities ?-The average price for imported<br />
in bond-or duty paid, if you take it in that way-for the last twelve months has been, I would think,<br />
about 8;td. to 81-d.; I may say S!cl. ·<br />
48553. They are 2d. dearer?-Yes, at the moment.<br />
48554. And your local article has gone up in proportion?-Yes. Our price for nearly twelve<br />
months was about 8d., !ts against S!cl. imported.<br />
48555. Can you account for the rise in the imported article ?-Simply short stocks with a very great<br />
increase in the price <strong>of</strong> tallow.<br />
48556. At home ?-Yes.<br />
48557. In Europe ?-Yes.<br />
48558. Then your price here is regulated by the imported price, I gather from your statement?<br />
No ; it is regulated by the price <strong>of</strong> tallow. For instance, to-day we could get probably from ld. to<br />
more than we are getting now to follow the imported, but we met·ely follow the price <strong>of</strong> tallow.<br />
48559. The average price you get for your article to-day, or this year, is not as great as it was ten<br />
years ago when the 2cl. duty was first imposed, is it ?-No, not so high.<br />
48560. If you can carry on at a lower price to-day than you could ten years ago and make the<br />
undertaking a success, wonld you not be able to do the same if the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f?-The variation in<br />
price is accounted for to a great extent by the difference in the price <strong>of</strong> tallow.<br />
48561. So it will always be, whether there is a duty on or not ?-Taking ten years ago, the price <strong>of</strong><br />
tallow was higher than it is now, and that is one reason why they have been cheaper up to the present time.<br />
48562. Is not one reason why you can afford to sell at a lower rate now than you could ten years<br />
ago, this, that you have perfected your appliances and instructed your hands more completely ?-To some<br />
extent it is.
1435<br />
48563. The removal <strong>of</strong> the duty would not remove tlwse advantages which you have obtained in that John A •. Ki~hen,<br />
direction, would it?-Yes, and more. There would not be anything like l d. ad vantage, nor even id. 2n~":.:'; lSSa.<br />
advantage in the perfecting <strong>of</strong> our manufacture.<br />
48564. What I mean is this. Whntever that advantage is you have it now in addition to the duty,<br />
and you would have it still if the duty were removed ?-No, not necessarily so, because there is much<br />
greater competition with us now by the home houses. For the first few years they did not compete with<br />
us, but now they compete with us very much more. For instance, it is a very common thing for them to<br />
make special terms for Australian ships, even to the difference <strong>of</strong> ~d. I have known that myself as a fact.<br />
Candles have been sol~ at id. cheaper than the current rate for the sake <strong>of</strong> getting them. into this market.<br />
48565. To ship them to <strong>Victoria</strong>?-Yes. There has been very keen competition with us in that<br />
respect, and there have been already one or two very large failures in business at home ; one has just tal~:en<br />
place now.<br />
48566. 'Vhat would be the ultimate effect, so far as your experience enables you to come to a<br />
conclusion, if the duty were lowered or removed and your factory were closed, so far as the manufacture <strong>of</strong><br />
stearine candles goes. What would be the effect upon the market for candles here ?-They would be no<br />
cheaper than they are to-day.<br />
48567. No cheaper ?-No, or rather the average price would not, in my opinion, be any less.<br />
48568. Can you explain to the Commission upon what grounds you come to that conclusion ?-In<br />
the first place we have to sell a candle that is recognised. The candle that I speak <strong>of</strong> that I put against<br />
the imp01·ted is a superior candle to the imported to the extent <strong>of</strong> !cl. a pound. We really have to sell<br />
them on account <strong>of</strong> prejudice, and people preferring the imported candle, I dare say prejudice to a great<br />
extent ; there is fully ~cl. difference in that respect. And then we have taken away the importers' pr<strong>of</strong>its<br />
(which were <strong>of</strong>ten very heavy) since the imp0sition <strong>of</strong> the duty. There htLs been no pr<strong>of</strong>it upon candles<br />
since they have been made here to any great extent.<br />
48569. Importet·s have made no pr<strong>of</strong>it, ?-Importers have made no pr<strong>of</strong>it ; generally tltey are sold at<br />
a loss, and I know that if we were out <strong>of</strong> the market the probability is, <strong>of</strong> course, thl1t they would ml1ke<br />
their pr<strong>of</strong>its again.<br />
48570. Do we understand you to say that the importers have ml1de this a cutting line <strong>of</strong> trade, then,<br />
as sugar is generally supposed to be with grocers ?-Very much so.<br />
48571. Can you tell the Commission what is the difference to-day between the wholesale price <strong>of</strong><br />
candles per pound, at which the importers land them here, l1nd what they sell to the retail storekeeJJers for?<br />
-Are yon speaking <strong>of</strong> the present time?<br />
48572. Yes, the present time ?-Do I understand that you want the difference between that cost<br />
and the cost <strong>of</strong> the candle here ?<br />
48573. Yes. Take for instance an importing firm in Melbonrne-Connell and Hogarth or any <strong>of</strong><br />
them-what price are they charging to their storekeepers up-country for their candles, l18 compared with<br />
the price t.hey pay for them landed here ?-They <strong>of</strong>ten sell at a loss.<br />
4857J. Can you tell us the market price to-day for both kinds '!-To-day, as it happens, they are<br />
bearing a pr<strong>of</strong>it in consequence <strong>of</strong> a very large l1dvance, as I told you just now ; but in the usual way<br />
there is no pr<strong>of</strong>it, anc.l there is a loss in selling them to the retailer and to mining· people.<br />
48575. What would be the effect ot' reducing the duty from 2d. to a penny only, and not going<br />
to the extent <strong>of</strong> striking it <strong>of</strong>f altogether ?-Upon the mannfactur~rs?<br />
48576. Yes ?-As I said before, we must close om· factories; we could not possibly keep on.<br />
48577. If you had only a penny taken o:ff ?-Yes. I thought you were speaking <strong>of</strong> the penny.<br />
We could not keep ou with a halfpenny reduction.<br />
48578. By Mr. lJ!Icintyre.-What is the price <strong>of</strong> tallow in this country at present ?-Best tallow<br />
about £38 a ton.<br />
48579. What is the price per ton in London ?-£48, last ad vices.<br />
48580. They give .£10 a ton more for tallow at home, and they import the article here for<br />
how much ?-About 6d.<br />
48581. You said £39 and £48 ?-Yes. I take yon to say to-day; to-day there happens to be £10<br />
difference. The average difference is £6.<br />
48582. Do you mean to convey to the Commission that it is impossible for yon to coinpete with<br />
the home article while the tallow is so mu eh more costly there than it is here?-Yes.<br />
48583. What are the other component parts <strong>of</strong> a stearine candle-what is there outside <strong>of</strong> the<br />
tallow ?-Are you alluding to t.he colonial candle or the imported ?<br />
4R58L Colonial ?-Tallow entirelv.<br />
48585. And the other articles tha:'t are used to make up the candle ?-Nothing but tallow.<br />
48586. Is there not something to harden the tallow ?-:-It undergoes a certain process.<br />
48587. No spermaceti or anything <strong>of</strong> that kind used ?-Nothing at all.<br />
4~588. Is any used in the home candle ?-Yes, other ingredients are used in the home candle, what<br />
we call adulteration-cheap wax, em·th wax, and many ot!ICr things.<br />
48589. It is a singular thing, but you seem to think it is a fact nevertheless, that this adulteration<br />
is appreciated by the consumers <strong>of</strong> candles ?-No, it is not so far as the English cl1ndle coming here to-dl1y<br />
goes. If the consumption were to be put upon these imported eandlt"s it would add to it so that the miners<br />
could not use them, the quality <strong>of</strong> them has so altered during the last ten years.<br />
48590. Do you know as a matter <strong>of</strong> fact that the miners prefer the imported candles ?-No, I do not.<br />
48591. I do, so that settles that point as far as I am concerned. Y on think that it is a prejudice<br />
against your candles ?-Not in the mines, for in the mines I think the colonial article is used to the extent<br />
<strong>of</strong> 98 per cent. to the extent <strong>of</strong> only 2 or 3 per cent. <strong>of</strong> imported.<br />
48592. The prices being equal ?-No; I am speaking now <strong>of</strong> the consumption to-day. It is 95 to<br />
97! per cent. ,<br />
48593. Would you consider it a. fact if the Commission had received evidence to the effect that the<br />
colonial candle is very much reprobatec1, so to speak, by miners as a rule, so that they do not care to use<br />
it. We have evidence to the effect that you make a candle so full <strong>of</strong> tallow that it drips and destroys the<br />
amalgam, and they prefer the imported article ?-No, I never heard anything <strong>of</strong> that sort.<br />
48594. If we have evidence <strong>of</strong> that sort from r'rJ,iners, would it be a fact ?-No,
0<br />
John A.. Kitchen,<br />
1436<br />
48595. If the men themselves who use it swear to that ?-One man might say so.<br />
t!tmti'llued, h cc d<br />
zndMnrlass. 48596. They are the men who use them and they give evidence tot at euect, nn you think it is<br />
not correct ?-Certainly it would not be correct. I have here the relative melting points <strong>of</strong> our candles<br />
and the imported candles if you would like to take them down.<br />
48597. Will you give it in evidence ?-These are tests that I have watched to-day. They show<br />
the melting points <strong>of</strong> the three imported brands I had before me.<br />
48598. Would you name the brands ?-I can name the brands.<br />
48599. How can we compare the articles unless we know the names ?-I doubt if it is fair to<br />
manufacturers whom you wish me to mention.<br />
_<br />
48600. I understand that you are going to give us tests <strong>of</strong> the imported candles ?-Of the imported<br />
candle, the melting point is the true test <strong>of</strong> the imported candle.<br />
48601. Will you give us the statement?<br />
48602. B.!J the Chairman.-lilld give the names, too, for it is no good without them ?-I think I am<br />
rendering myself some way liable in giving the names.<br />
48603. B.:1 Mr. JYiclntyre.-Well, then, put it this way: that you have tested certain brands <strong>of</strong> the<br />
English imported article, and give that without giving the ll!Lmes ?-I have no objection to state that I<br />
have tried certain packages <strong>of</strong>' candles to-day-at least saw them tried by my chemist, and that those bore<br />
a certain melting point.<br />
48604. I would rather you would not give that evidence at all. If we want it we can get it':from<br />
the chemist himself. I thought yon were the chemist ?-It was done in my presence and I had the<br />
thet·mometer in my hand myself. De Rubaix Genaud had a melting point <strong>of</strong> 118°, de Rubaix Oven<br />
R<strong>of</strong>er 121°, Schiedarn 120°, that is as against our candle 122°.<br />
48605. All round ?-Yes.<br />
48606. And yours is a higher average ?-Yes.<br />
48607. About ·1 ?-An average <strong>of</strong> more than It. That is a very considerable difference in candles.<br />
I then tried one <strong>of</strong> ours, a special candle that we <strong>of</strong>fer in competition with the Russian Neva, which is the<br />
, very best candle. The Russian Neva I made 122'\ according to the test applied to-clay, and our candle<br />
124°.<br />
48608. That is the special brand ?-That is the special brand.<br />
48609. The one that yon say takes the position <strong>of</strong> the Russian?-Yes.<br />
48610. Is this your regular candle melting point-the one you have been turning out for many<br />
years ?-122°.<br />
48611. For many years or recently ?-For many years.<br />
48612. How long is it since you began to improve the canclle you sell ?-We have not improved<br />
for a long time-not in that candle, we have been at 122° to 123° for many years.<br />
48613. If that is a fair statement <strong>of</strong> the melting points, would not the mining community, your<br />
largest consumers, as you admit, have discovered it long ago and have prefeiTecl it to the imported<br />
mtnclle ?-The imported candle has totally changed in quality since the miners had them. The miners<br />
have not had them for many years, and if anything occnrred to make them use imported candles again they<br />
could not use them.<br />
48614. I am afraid you are not quite safe in giving that evidence. Last year there were as many<br />
candles imported, as is evident by the amount received in taxation, as there were in 1870 when there was<br />
only a penny duty, £11,114 last year as compared with £5,432 before, showing (as I know the fact to be)<br />
that the miners are consuming the imported article much more largely than they have been doing. How do<br />
you account for that ?-I am perfectly assured it is not correct.<br />
48615. There is the evidence ?-I speak now <strong>of</strong> mining consumption last year. It increased onehalf.<br />
Are you taking <strong>of</strong>f what went out <strong>of</strong> the colony again ?<br />
48616. I give you the revenue, it Wl1.S the same last year as the previous year. There has<br />
been no such revenue as there was then since 1871 when the penny duty was on, and I want to get at<br />
your reason for making the statement it has decreased ?-All I can say is, that each year our demand has<br />
increased.<br />
48617. In that way you draw the line. You said that the increase in the price at home <strong>of</strong> tallow<br />
has no effect particularly upon the local market, ancl yet you follow the home price ?-No, I beg your pardon,<br />
I follow the price <strong>of</strong> tallow in this market. I have nothing to do with the home price <strong>of</strong> candles, and<br />
nothing to do with the home tallow price.<br />
48618. If the home article were selling at a high price, would not the makers here raise their price ?<br />
-No, it depends entirely upon the price <strong>of</strong> tallow.<br />
48619. What was tallow this time twelve months ago ?-This time eighteen months, I think, there<br />
would be a difference <strong>of</strong> £10 to £18 per ton.<br />
48620. What was it a twelvemonth ago ?-I fancy it commenced to go up just then, I am not quite<br />
clear.<br />
48621. It is a singular thing that you have raised the price <strong>of</strong> candles and that tallow has notmuch<br />
altered in pt'ice ?-Tallow has altered considerably in price.<br />
48622. What was the price <strong>of</strong> tallow twelve months ago ?-I could not say.<br />
48623. What was it six months ago ?-Perhaps a difference <strong>of</strong> £3.<br />
48624. You have increased the price <strong>of</strong> candles how much since then ?-A penny farthing, I<br />
think.<br />
48625. For a difference <strong>of</strong> £3 in a ton <strong>of</strong>' tallow you increased the price <strong>of</strong> the article you made<br />
l~d. a pound ?~One penny farthing.<br />
48626. Is that a fair thing ?-All the candles were being sold at that time for a oonsiderable loss<br />
for six or eight months.<br />
48627. Were you selling at 11 loss ?-At a considerable loss.<br />
48628 An absolute loss do you mean ?-An absolute loss.<br />
48629 .. And you continued to employ atl those hands ?-And I centinuecl to employ all those hands,<br />
and at an absolute loss.<br />
48630. And if a penny duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f you wonld discharge all those ?-.And if a penny duty<br />
were taken <strong>of</strong>f we would discharge all those permanently.
1437<br />
48631. How can you make ends then, if you sell at a loss ?-Because we have to put one six John A. Kitchenl<br />
continudd~<br />
months against another six months.<br />
!lnd May 1883,<br />
48632 .. Would not that apply if you take <strong>of</strong>f a penny duty ?-No, because then we see no m·,()~''"'r•r.<br />
but a permanent and a heavy loss.<br />
48633. 'Vhat wages do you pay ?-Per man, we commence at 3Gs., I think. Of cmu·se, a great<br />
many get higher wages than that.<br />
48634. Do you pay by the week or by piece-work ?-Partly, not much by<br />
I<br />
think it is only moulding that is paid by<br />
48635. Have your wages largely since you got the duty upon candles<br />
48636. Are you paying more to the men than you did. befOTe; are wages higher<br />
two<br />
or three years they are higher, perhaps 10 cent. higher.<br />
48637. Does that arise from the that you get a 2d. duty, or a scarcity <strong>of</strong>labour ?-A scarcity<br />
<strong>of</strong> labour.<br />
48638. Do you really wish the Commission to believe that, in the e·vent <strong>of</strong> a recommendation being<br />
made that the duty should be reduced by a penny a pound, the proportion <strong>of</strong> 300 hands that you<br />
employ upon candle-making would be at once discharged ?-I am on my oath, and I cannot see even<br />
with a halfpenny taken <strong>of</strong>f the duty that we could possibly keep on that department, we wonld just have<br />
to close it.<br />
48639. W oulJ the hands now employed upon that particular branch not be absorbed in some other<br />
direction in your manufacture ?-Most certainly not. We have our usual soap-hands. lwve 11othing<br />
to do with the cnndles. If the candle department is closed the candle-hands would have to go, <strong>of</strong> course; and<br />
it is not only the two or three htmdrcd that we employ at the factory, but some hundreds outside, all depend<br />
upon it.<br />
48640. Suppose this 2d. a pound were not upon the imported artiele at present, woulcl you tell me<br />
the price <strong>of</strong> the imported candle without the duty ?-In the long run I do not think it would be any<br />
cheaper.<br />
48641. If that is the case, there is no need for any duty at all from the reasons I have<br />
stated first that we have to sell our n.t a halfPenny under the imported. always have to do that,<br />
because we have all the makers<br />
Candles are constantly being put on board at a considerable<br />
loss. We run the continental very close indeed. Two have already failed and they a~e selling<br />
candles to Australian ports at a very low price.<br />
48642. Those home makers must be a sort <strong>of</strong> philanthropists?-We have reduced the European<br />
candle.<br />
48643. Those home manufacturers who sell so cheap must be disposed to be kind to the colony?<br />
That I cannot say. I am not acquainted with them.<br />
48644. Supposing candles come at this low price, who would benefit by it ?-If they come vtithout<br />
a duty ?<br />
48645. Yes ?-If they come without a duty at very low prices the public might benefit to some<br />
extent.<br />
4!:l646. The consumer, the miner, would benefit?-Yon are speaking <strong>of</strong> a special case if those<br />
prices still continue, in my opinion they woulcl not continue.<br />
48647. Then if they would not, wherein comes the competition, you need not be afraid <strong>of</strong> it ?-They<br />
if we were closed, <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
You about candles being ls. lcl. a pound some time ?-Some years ago.<br />
48649. Have you ever seen them sold as high as 2s. 6d. a pound cannot recollect.<br />
48650. I said it is a question <strong>of</strong> time, you know that was one <strong>of</strong> the times that I speak <strong>of</strong><br />
when the importers were getting such a very large pr<strong>of</strong>it as they would if the duty was taken <strong>of</strong>f and<br />
the trade was<br />
upon the importers.<br />
48651. do not believe that if there was a glut <strong>of</strong> this article at home they would not be very<br />
glad to make a market for it here ?-I could not say.<br />
48652. You do not want the Commission, either, to that the reduction from ls. ld. to the<br />
present price was in consequence <strong>of</strong> the 2d. duty upon want the Commission to miderstaud that<br />
we do not tl1ink the 2d. duty has enhanced the price <strong>of</strong><br />
the ten years.<br />
48653. Suppose you put 3d. on it, would it enhance the ?-Yes.<br />
48654. Then a penny would make all the difference in direction ?-Certainly. .<br />
48655. I thought the higher the duty put on the lower the <strong>of</strong> the article. You clo export<br />
some candles to Syclney ?-Not to any extent, only 2 cwt. or 3 cwt. in a year, just to oblige a soap<br />
customer.<br />
48656. You are not one <strong>of</strong> the men that send them to the adjoining colonies and sell at a less price<br />
than the whole world and than they do here ?-None <strong>of</strong> the Melbourne manufacturers do that.<br />
48657. You Citnnot answer for them ?-I go by the regular returns.<br />
48658. The mining community is the largest consumer <strong>of</strong> this particular article, and the burden <strong>of</strong><br />
taxation upon that one item is very great, seeing the amount <strong>of</strong> duty paid last year. Have you ever<br />
thought <strong>of</strong> the propriety <strong>of</strong> doing justice to that particular industry by increasing the value <strong>of</strong> gold, and<br />
give them £4 10s. an ounce for their gold to .make up for what they pay for candles ?-No, I have not<br />
considered it at all. ·<br />
48659. By Mr.' Munro.-You say all the importers are against- you. Do not you sell any candles to<br />
wholesale merchants ?-Yes.<br />
48660. And how do I understand vou that all the are agffinst you. Would not it pay<br />
merchants to deal with you ?-No. '<br />
48661. They get equally as good an article and do not require to keep so large a stock that<br />
is· where my point comes in ; they could not get the amount <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it from the colonial man that they can<br />
with the imported, because they cnn <strong>of</strong>ten get a good pr<strong>of</strong>it in the case <strong>of</strong> short shipments.<br />
48662. Supposing the importers dealt with would not require to have the same amount <strong>of</strong><br />
capital invested in candles, and they could be<br />
a small pr<strong>of</strong>it, and at the end <strong>of</strong> the year<br />
would do as well ordering a large quantity ?-One reason we have them against us is that they did
, John A •. Kitchen, whole trade before, but now <strong>of</strong> course we do a great deal <strong>of</strong> the country trade direct ; we have taken a great<br />
' •• 2 n~'::;'tssa. deal <strong>of</strong> their country trade from them.<br />
48663. You have travellers out selling to storekeepers all through the country ?-Yes, I have<br />
travellers out selling to storekeepers all through the country, so we have taken the trade from the importers,<br />
and that is one reason why they do not like us.<br />
48664. Is there any association or any way to regulate the price the same as the confectioners do, is<br />
there a uniform tariff <strong>of</strong> prices ?-To some extent.<br />
48665. Do you meet monthly ?-No.<br />
48666. Do the candle makers ?-No.<br />
48667. Do you meet at all ?-No.<br />
48668. Have you some understanding as to the price ?-To some extent we have.<br />
48669. There is an understanding between the trade, the manufacturers. We were tolcl yesterday<br />
that the confectioners met monthly to regulate the price ?-No, we do not; there is nothing <strong>of</strong> the kind with<br />
us. We have an indefinite understanding, but there is nothing very definite about it.<br />
48670. What is the value <strong>of</strong> the plant you employ in this factory ?-From .£50,000 to .£60,000 in<br />
candles I suppose.<br />
48671. Your :firm is now a limited company, is it not ?-Yes.<br />
48672. By ~Jr. Zo:c.-Will you please to explain what you mean by an indefinite understanding<br />
existing between the manufacturers <strong>of</strong> candles ?-We have no hard and fast arrangement as to prices, any<br />
hard and fast line committed to paper, or anything <strong>of</strong> that sort; there is a general understanding as to prices,<br />
but there is nothing very definite about it.<br />
48673. Will you please to explain to the Commission the nature <strong>of</strong> the understanding without its<br />
being hard and fast, that exists between the manufacturers <strong>of</strong> colonial candles?-Yes. For instance, take<br />
last week. There have been one or two advances on tallow lately; I would meet the manager <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Apollo Company, perhaps call at his <strong>of</strong>fice, and tell him that I thought I should raise candles, and he would<br />
perhaps agree with me and they would be raised, but there is nothing binding between us. For instance,<br />
the Apollo Company may sell a line <strong>of</strong> candles an !d. or a !d. under us. There is nothing binding, nothing<br />
very definite.<br />
48674. But after an interview <strong>of</strong> the description you have mentioned, if you were undersold by the<br />
Apollo or any other candle company, would you or would you not consider it a breach <strong>of</strong> tmst ?-No;<br />
because 'there is nothing definite about it.<br />
48675. A breach <strong>of</strong> faith, I mean, if they undersold you ?-No, there is nothing definite about it.<br />
48676. If there is nothing definite about that interview, what is the good <strong>of</strong> the interview?<br />
Because it keeps prices together to some extent.<br />
48677. To what extent ?-To a great extent, but not altogether.<br />
48678. I do not desire to press you upon that question, but you say that really there is no combination<br />
between the candle makers <strong>of</strong> this country to maintain their prices ?-There is no binding<br />
combination.<br />
48679. Is there a very great export <strong>of</strong> tallow from this country to the old country ?-Yes, very<br />
large.<br />
48680. And then those candles come back again ?-No.<br />
48681. Do the candles made from this tallow come back to this country at all ?-That used to be<br />
the case some years ago, but now, to a very great extent, the home manufacturers do not use tallow, they<br />
use cheap earth-wax and palm oil and other things, and that is the very reason that candles are not so<br />
good. I was saying just now, importeu candles are not nearly so good, and tllat the way ours are so much<br />
better than theirs is, that we can get nothing but tallow and they get the other cheap ingredients. They<br />
come cheaper to them but certainly take <strong>of</strong>f the value <strong>of</strong> the candle very considerably.<br />
48682. Are those ingredients unobtainable in this country ?-Yes, quite.<br />
48683. You make stearine candles?-Yes, exclusively from tallow.<br />
48684. You said sometime ago you sold those candles at something like a p€lnny a pound loss?<br />
Yes.<br />
48685. What was the reason ?-A glut in the import market to some extent, a very great glut.<br />
They were selling here at a very great loss, and as to the local competition, instead <strong>of</strong> anything binding<br />
between us, we were cutting tooth and nail against each other· for some months.<br />
. 48686. In point <strong>of</strong> fact does not that prove undoubtedly there could not have been any combination<br />
between the local manufacturers ?-Certainly, for a very long time we were working in that way.<br />
486!:17. Do you think it a matter <strong>of</strong> impossibility in any way to reduce the pt·ice, supposing the duty<br />
were taken <strong>of</strong>t; you are not able to compete with the home manufacturer ?-I do not catch your question<br />
~~ .<br />
48688. Suppose that the duty upon candles were in any way lowered, would it be a matter <strong>of</strong><br />
impossiblity for you to. compete with the candles sent out here ?-I have stated so before, and I want to be<br />
very clear, that even if a halfpenny were taken <strong>of</strong>f, we could not possibly keep on the industry. It is<br />
quite impossible to do so.<br />
•<br />
48689. By Mr. 1Wclntyre.-l want to draw Mr. Kitchen's attention to the evidence we received at<br />
Sandhurst from one <strong>of</strong> the largest mining mapagers there, Mr. Von der Heyde. It is desirable the<br />
manufacturers should know the feeling <strong>of</strong> the mining community. "Are you aware from your own experience<br />
<strong>of</strong> the difference in burning power <strong>of</strong> the one candle over the other ?-No ; but I know that when<br />
the candles are very s<strong>of</strong>t they destroy the amalgamation in the tables. 10534. The drippings <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>of</strong>t<br />
tallow candle upon the quartz are very mischievous to the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> the gold?-Yes. 10535. That<br />
is an objection against the colonial article?-Yes, and it was the same objection against hot-water feed<br />
in old time. We thought it would be much better to crush with hot water, but first it made the quicksilver<br />
too lively, and secondly the hot water turned the grease to oil and lost the gold. 10536. In fact, the<br />
bad quality <strong>of</strong> the candles is against their use in the mines ?-Yes, otherwise they would use tallow<br />
candles; but they only use those in wet mines iu sinking shafts. 10537. In fact, the imported article at<br />
G~d. in bond is much more suitable in quality for your purposes ?-Yes, bec>tuse they are much harder."<br />
There is the evidence <strong>of</strong> t4is gentlen1an, and it is well yot1 maru~f&ctnrers should know the feeling <strong>of</strong> the<br />
1438
1439<br />
people in the country ?-I think there would be no difficulty in bringing down a hundred men from Ballarat John A •.Kilchen,<br />
or Sandhurst who are always using those candles, to show that they are quite equal to the imported.<br />
2n~ 0 ~f~:'fss3.<br />
48690. The Commission took the evidence and it was published every day in the local press, and<br />
the Commission were quite willing to receive evidence from such men and they did not come ?-I may say<br />
that Mr. Clal'k, the chemist to the Apollo Company, can speak perhaps more confidently than myself (he is<br />
in the room) as to the melting point <strong>of</strong> those things, and their being properly decomposed.<br />
48691. By the Cltairman.-Have you anything further that you wish to add to the evidence you<br />
have given ?-I do not think so.<br />
48692. Is there any article that you use in your industry that pays duty that the duty might be<br />
removed from ?-No, I think not.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
The Honorable Thomas Loader, sworn and examined.<br />
48693. By the Chairman.-You are the secretary or manager <strong>of</strong> the Apollo Candle Company?- TbeHonora.ble<br />
Managing director<br />
• , 2nd May 1883.<br />
48694. When was your company established ?-Somewhere about ten years ago; about 1873.<br />
48695. Situated in Footscray, is it not?-Yes.<br />
48696. How many hands have you employed there now ?-About 120 or 130, between 100 and 200<br />
we generally have; we are rather short-handed just now.<br />
48697. That does not include the outside work ; that is the people in the factory itself ?-That is<br />
the whole number we employ.<br />
48698. Do you manufacture anything but candles ?-Soap, glycerine, and lubricating oils.<br />
48699. Do you take apprentices ?-No.<br />
48700. Do you begin to pay wages from the first?-"\Ve pay wages from the first.<br />
48701. Have you any difficulty in getting lads ?-Occasionally ; but not as a rule. I should not say<br />
we have any difficulty.<br />
48702. What wages do you begin with now ?-We commence at 10s. for boys and girls, and 12s.<br />
and up to 34s. for labour.<br />
48703. You have some females employed ?-Yes.<br />
48704. They commence at 10s., and when they get to be journeymen, do they get wages weekly, or<br />
are they employed piece-work ?-Most.ly weekly wages, very few men are upon piece-work.<br />
48705. What can they earn a week when they are full journeymen-thoroughly masters <strong>of</strong> their<br />
business ?-Laborers from 33s. to 36s. The other men, press men and others, earn up to £2.<br />
48706. Your industry was established after the last alteration 1n the duty upon candles ?-Yes.<br />
48707. The second penny was put on in 1871, and your industry was established in 1873 ?-It<br />
never would have been established except for it.<br />
48708. It was established in consequence <strong>of</strong> the duty ?-No doubt.<br />
48709. Now that you have reached your present stage <strong>of</strong> perfection, could you carry on if the duty<br />
were removed ?-Not at present, certainly.<br />
48710. Would yon be able to earry on if the duty were reduced to the original penny ?-Certainly<br />
not, at present.<br />
48711. You say "not at present"-do you wish to infer by that, that in a few years time you<br />
might be iu that position ?-I think so ; I hope so. Whoever has the management <strong>of</strong> this business in a<br />
few years time, I imagine, would be able to do without so hea,vy a duty as at present, but certainly not<br />
now; the industry is not yet sufficiently acclimatised and established. Up to the present time, the company<br />
I represent has had nothing but one struggle <strong>of</strong> troubles and difficulties to work against the whole <strong>of</strong><br />
the time.<br />
48712. And you are not quite through them yet ?-No, indeed, we are not.<br />
48713. Do you do an export trade?-We have a branch establishment in Sydney to which we<br />
export a certain quantity <strong>of</strong> preparecl tallow and distilled stearine. We have done so until lately.<br />
48714. And then you manufacture the stearine into candles, in Sydney?-Yes.<br />
48715. Have not they lately stopped that?-Yes, within the last six weeks they have imposed a duty<br />
<strong>of</strong> Id. a pound which has stopped us sending stuff there.<br />
48716. By lYir. Grimwade.-A duty upon crude stearine ?-A. duty upon crude stearine.<br />
48717. By the Cl!airman.-They have a duty <strong>of</strong> 1d. a pound upon eandles, have they not?<br />
Yes.<br />
.48718. And now they have made a departmental regulation which reckons a case <strong>of</strong> stearine to be<br />
a box <strong>of</strong> candles ?-Yes.<br />
48719. And charge you 1d. a pound upon it ?-That is exactly it.<br />
48720. And that prevents you from manufacturing them in Sydney, does it not ?-Yes, at present,<br />
48721. And that would stop your export trade then ?-It will to some extent.<br />
48722. Have you any information to give to the Commission about the relative qualities <strong>of</strong> the<br />
colonial candle and the imported. Did you hear the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Kitchen upon that point?-I did not.<br />
But the colonial eanclle, the pure animal stearine candle, made by the local factories, is a better candle than<br />
the majority <strong>of</strong> European candles that come to this market, beeause it is manufactured from animal stearine,<br />
and many <strong>of</strong> the importecl candles are manufactured from il~ferior greases, vegetable greases and others.<br />
48723. Mr. Kitchen informed the Commission that the price <strong>of</strong> colonial candles has always to be<br />
about id. a pound lower than the price <strong>of</strong> the imported ?-That_is so.<br />
4872±. Of the same quality ?-That is so.<br />
48725. That is your experience ?-Yes, that is in consequence <strong>of</strong> the prejudice <strong>of</strong> the people here in<br />
favour <strong>of</strong> imported candles.<br />
48726. The prices Mr. Kitchen gave us as ranging to-day (which he told U!J were exceptionally<br />
high on account, principally, <strong>of</strong> the increase in the price <strong>of</strong> tallow) are 9.g.d. to 9~d. for colonial, and lOd. to<br />
lO!d. for imported ?-Just so. ·<br />
48727. So that though the duty is 2d. the enhancement in price over the imported is only ld. ?<br />
That is so.<br />
Thomas Loo.der,
Tne Rono:rab!a<br />
Th9!n!IS Loader,<br />
continued,<br />
2nd May 1883,<br />
1440<br />
48728. IA that your experience ?-Yes, that is right.<br />
48729. Have you gone into the question sufficiently minutely to be able to say for a certainty that<br />
your industry could not carry on without the present rate <strong>of</strong> duty?~Yes, I have not a doubt about it.<br />
48730. You have no doubt about it ?-Not any.<br />
48731. I suppose the soap part <strong>of</strong>. it could carry on ?-Yes, the soap is quite independent <strong>of</strong> duty.<br />
48732. What proportion <strong>of</strong> your business is the soap business ?-I could not exactly name the<br />
proportion, but I do not consider that we are very large soap manufacturers at present ; it is only lately<br />
that we have given much attention to the soap trade. We have been making soap always for the last five<br />
or six years.<br />
48733. Your principal business is the candles?-Yes.<br />
48734. Have you an export trade to any <strong>of</strong> the other colonies ?-In candles, I mentioned already to<br />
Sydney.<br />
48735. To none <strong>of</strong> the other colonies except Sydney ?-No, we have an independent factory in<br />
Brisbane, where there is 2d. duty the same as there is in this colony, without which duty we never should<br />
have establised a factory there. There is no doubt these duties, whether they are right or wrong, have<br />
been the direct means <strong>of</strong> establishing this factory.<br />
· 48736. Ca,u you give the Commission any information as to what the price <strong>of</strong> candles was before you<br />
started, say in 1870, before the additional penny was put on-the price <strong>of</strong> stearine candles, the average<br />
1)rice-was it lower than it is now ?-I am very sorry to say th
1441<br />
the ld. is taken <strong>of</strong>f, the miners might get the ld. for prospecting with. They might get it for many other The Honomble<br />
'Ihomas Loader,<br />
purposes ; they might not get it at all ; it depends upon the state <strong>of</strong> the market entirely.<br />
con#nueil,<br />
48753. It l;llight be mopped up by the importers ?-It might.<br />
2nd May, 1883.<br />
48754. At any rate your company would have to close its canclle works utterly, and leave the market<br />
to the importers '?-I have not the slightest doubt every candle company would stop.<br />
48755. By Mr. Zvru.-You say you <strong>of</strong>ten pay a certain amount <strong>of</strong> duties in your trade with regret;<br />
can you tell the Commission what those duties are that you pay upon the articles that you use in your<br />
business ?-Machinery. Sometimes we have to import machinery that we cannot get made here, and we<br />
have to pay duty upon it.<br />
48756. Is that the only article ; is there any raw material that you use in the manufacture <strong>of</strong><br />
candles, upon which yo,u have to pay a duty, that is not produced in this country·?-I do not remember that<br />
we do pay upon anything ; machinery happened to be uppermost in my mind because we had been recently<br />
paying it.<br />
48757. You do not know. <strong>of</strong> any other article?-No, I do not know <strong>of</strong> much duty upon other<br />
things.<br />
48758. Is the machinery upon which you pay duty patent machinery ?-No.<br />
48759. Could the articles <strong>of</strong> machinery, which you use in your business, be made in the colony ?-It<br />
could, a[ter we had once got the pattern here; hut the machinory generally is new to us, and is generally<br />
ordered from plans and pattern books which we see; but after we have once got the machinery here we can<br />
generally get it made upon the spot, and very <strong>of</strong>ten we get it made to a great advantage.<br />
48760. But suppose you do not import the machinery from England, would it be absolutely necessary<br />
for you to get it manufactured in this coumry ?-Yes, we must either get it made here or import it, I think.<br />
48761. Would the difference in price be very much ?-~The difference in price is not the whole thing,<br />
there is a difference in quality as well. In some c:tses the difference in price would not prevent us from<br />
having it made here if we could get the right quality made here. Some <strong>of</strong> our materials are made <strong>of</strong> cast<br />
iron, and the quality <strong>of</strong>' the metal used here by the foundries for making that particular descl'iption <strong>of</strong> steel<br />
pots, that we require, is not good enough; they have not got the proper metals to make the proper mixture,<br />
and we are obliged to import those articles from Scotland.<br />
48762. Bnt, taking into consideration the difference in price you have to pay and the difference in<br />
the quality you mention, suppose you put it into a percentage, could you give the Commission any idea. <strong>of</strong><br />
the percentage there would be between the colonial-made article and the English ?-I coulcl not. Allow<br />
me to explain the impossibility <strong>of</strong> doing so. Baircl metal ici no good at tLll for such a purpose as a steel<br />
pot for you may have a large charge <strong>of</strong> valuable contents in a still and it may go at a most unexpected<br />
time, before it has been in use a month, or two perhaps. A good steel pot made ot' proper metal will last<br />
for years, and you may work with the utmost security, so that no percentage would represent the difference<br />
between a bad steel pot and a good one, and th!tt class <strong>of</strong> metal is not understood by common founders .who<br />
are right enough in making a common casting; they have not either the experience or the metal for it.<br />
48763. Since we have establish-ed the manufacture in the colony, has it been an advantage or<br />
otherwise to the consumers, with the duty on, as far as English prices are concerned?-Ut,terly irrespective<br />
<strong>of</strong> my being interested in candle making, from a pmctical point <strong>of</strong> view I consider the consumer has benefited<br />
immensely by the existence <strong>of</strong> these fn,ctories.<br />
48764. If the duty then were taken <strong>of</strong>f to-morrow and the English candles were to come in free,<br />
would the consumer be able to purchase at a higher or a lower price than at present ?-The consumer would<br />
be subject to the establishment <strong>of</strong> candle rings and the fluctuations <strong>of</strong> the market, and they would pay a<br />
high price; probably they would be paying Is. 6d. a pound at this moment for candles.<br />
48765. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Kitchen about the existence <strong>of</strong> combinations in the tradedo<br />
you agree with that ?-Yes, I agree with him. There is a combination between us or we should be<br />
cutting each other's throats, ns we have done more than once.<br />
48766. Have you any objection to state the nature <strong>of</strong> that combination r-Wben tallow rises or<br />
falls, we meet and have a few words-" Do you consider we can go on as we are, or ought candles to be<br />
raised or lowered?'' and the whole thing is done in a few minutes. vYe consider whether we can rise or<br />
fall according to the tallow market .<br />
.· 48767. At these interviews, is there a price settled between the various candle makers <strong>of</strong> the colony?<br />
__;There are but two <strong>of</strong> us.<br />
48768. And the two <strong>of</strong> you do it?-Yes, we make agreements-but we do not always keep them.<br />
48769. Is that fair ?-It depends upon which does it.<br />
48770. By M1·. Mclnty1·e.-If the importers did it, what would it be considered ?-It would be con-<br />
. sidered a market combination. .<br />
48771. If the manufacturers do it it is not a market combination?-It is a market combination; it is<br />
done all over the world.<br />
48772. The Chairma,n just asked you about a man who gave evideu~e at Fryerstown, and you said<br />
that this opinion that the ld. a pound would be a benefit to the miners was a vague one. No doubt it is<br />
vague, but is it not natural to him to think that they would get the benefit '?-It is natural enough.<br />
48773. You did not pay any attention to that particular part <strong>of</strong> his evidence wherein he sahl that it<br />
was the general report that you exported an article to Sydney and sold it there at Id. a pound less than you<br />
did here. Is there any truth in that statement ?__;I must repmliate the statement, because the man, I still<br />
say, does not know what he is talking about.<br />
48774. But you know that an impression prevails ?-Yes, I know that an impression <strong>of</strong> that sort<br />
prevails.<br />
48775. You have heard it stated many times r-Very many times. .<br />
48776. Will you explain the facts <strong>of</strong> your exportation to Sydney and the price you sell at there as<br />
compared with your price here ?-That impost <strong>of</strong> lcl. a pound has preyvented us doing it. ·<br />
48777. That is latelv ?-Yes.<br />
48778. But before that ?--When the tallow runs llown to £2·i, £26, £28 per ton, we could manufacture<br />
steal'ine at a very much lower price than we can when tallow is anything over £30, up to £36 as it<br />
is now. At the lower prices it was within our .powcl' to manufacture ~tearine greatly in excess <strong>of</strong> the<br />
'J'AJl.lVF,<br />
8p
The IIonoro,b!e<br />
~horn"'! Loader,<br />
contlnued,<br />
2nd May 1883.<br />
1442<br />
consumption in this market; our still power being very much in excess <strong>of</strong> our melting power. We either<br />
have to keep those stills idle or to put them at full speed and sell the stuff somewhere else, and we found<br />
that by putting them at full speed we could send stuff to Sydney and sell the candles there within the<br />
tarift-the Sydney tariff-in large quantities, and we did so. Our trade in Sydney clifters from our trade<br />
in Melbourne in this respect, that we sell there in quantities <strong>of</strong> 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 boxes to wholesale<br />
houses, who take the whole cost <strong>of</strong> distribution upon themselves. ·we have no travellers and no staff<br />
up there beyond our manager and his clerk, and the accountant, and the boys and women in the factory;<br />
and the cost <strong>of</strong> sale and distribution in Sydney is less by at least id. to ~d. a pound, perhaps I might be<br />
quite safe in saying ~cl. to !cl. a pound than it is in :Melbourne. So that it requires us to obtain in<br />
Melbourne from -§-d. to ;fd. more to put us upon the same footing with regard io pr<strong>of</strong>its, that we are upon<br />
in Sydn~y. In Melbourne we have a large staff, we have four travellers and several clerks, and<br />
the whole necessary establishment. We have many hundreds <strong>of</strong> customers, a great many hundreds<br />
<strong>of</strong> customers; ttnd in New South Wales, I do pot suppose we have above sixty or seventy customers<br />
altogether. That expense to the extent <strong>of</strong> id. or id. a pound explains the difference between the two<br />
markets.<br />
48779. Th11t is the explanation <strong>of</strong> the fact ?-That is the explanation, to the extent <strong>of</strong> ~cl. at any<br />
rate.<br />
48780. Jnst lately ld. a pound has been imposed upon tllis article. Before that, how could you,<br />
compete with the foreigners to advantage in the Sydney market and not compete with them here ?-We<br />
could compete with them there, just as well as here. We used to sell 70,000 to 80,000 boxes <strong>of</strong> candles<br />
there.<br />
48781. With ld. a pound duty?-Yes.<br />
48782. Why could not you do the same here with Id. a pound duty ?-It was our surplus. I<br />
thought I explained that to you.<br />
48783. I understand you so far, but I want to .find out how it is that you could not apply nearly the<br />
same principle here and give the colony <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> the benefit <strong>of</strong> this reduction ?-I ailswer you at once,<br />
if a wholesale man here will !.my thousands <strong>of</strong> boxes from us and take a share <strong>of</strong> our work, and relieve us<br />
from the necessity <strong>of</strong>ha;ving tmvellers all over the country' we could at once give llim the benefit <strong>of</strong> aths<br />
<strong>of</strong> a penny a pound in the price. May I hand in some testimonials.about the quality <strong>of</strong> canclles-[ltanding<br />
in a paper.]-That is the South Garden Gully Company, a company you know, I think.<br />
48784. Yes. About the statement as to the medals you received at the different exhibitions. Were<br />
the candles you exhibited at the different exhibitions not a superior article to that which goes into general<br />
consumption?-You may depend upon it we do not send the worst, neither does the farmer, when he sells,<br />
show the worst quality <strong>of</strong> wheat.<br />
48785. Therefore it is not a fair test?-Yes it is, because if we do our best everybody else does the<br />
same.<br />
48786. But you may have succeeded by extra attention to that particular article ?-Allow me to<br />
mention, that as a matter <strong>of</strong> fact some candles exhibited at the exhibition as European candles were made<br />
at the Apollo Candle Company's works, and took a medal.<br />
48787. This is not the table that was mentioned. You mentioned some table to the Chairman to<br />
show the price <strong>of</strong> candles before the duty ·and now-does the table show also the price <strong>of</strong> tallow at that<br />
time ?-I do not think it does.<br />
48788. Then it would be no use to compare it unless we have the prices <strong>of</strong> tallow ?-That is<br />
quite so.<br />
48789. You say the table will show that the establishment <strong>of</strong> your factories here has reduced the<br />
price <strong>of</strong> candles. How can you possibly do that ?-That, I think, is undoubted. Before these factories<br />
were established, candles were imported in various ways, and it was known what quantity <strong>of</strong> candles were<br />
on the road out, and that enabled some <strong>of</strong> the large houses here to combine together and so purchase all the<br />
candles in the market and all the candles known to be upon the road out, and all the candles to arrive for<br />
the next three months. In that way a few houses would take the control <strong>of</strong> the candle market, and could<br />
at once put candles up to 15d. and 16d. a pound, which they did over and over again. It was impossible<br />
for their operation to be interfered .vith till the course <strong>of</strong> post to Europe had annotmced to the European markets<br />
what was going on here. and <strong>of</strong> course a great deal <strong>of</strong> money was made in that way. Then a glut <strong>of</strong> candles<br />
would come into the market in order to secure the high price ; the candle speculators by that time had sold<br />
out. and retired, and candles came doWll again, and as soon as they came down low enough, they walked into<br />
the market and bought them up again and put them up. The establishment <strong>of</strong> such factories as ours and<br />
Kitchen's renders that operation impossible, because the factories must be kept going. You cannot stop a<br />
factory as a merchant can a speculation. If a speculation is bad, the merchant just stores his stuff. He<br />
loses the interest and the amount <strong>of</strong> storage he pays; but if the manufacturer stops, he loses everything. His<br />
machinery and plant deteriorate, fl,nd he loses all his hands, and all his place goes to destruction ; therefore the<br />
only thing the mauufacturer can do if he meets with an tmfavourable market, is to reduce his price, and he<br />
must either go on nmning it at a loss or stop his factory at a loss. That is the choice between the two<br />
things. The reason is that these large factories must keep running, and they keep running at a price which<br />
prevents the speculation <strong>of</strong> former years, making it simply impossible. The price is now regulated simply<br />
by the bare price in Europe, and the tables which I handed up, and have much pleasure in placing before<br />
the Commission, will show that the price <strong>of</strong> candles has been gradually receding since 1872-3.<br />
48790. The explanation would be thoroughly satisfactory at the time you speak <strong>of</strong>, but it is not so<br />
now. Circumstances are very different. We are in hourly communication with Europe. vVe can be in<br />
communication with every manufacturer at a day's notice, and the matter <strong>of</strong> transit is entirely different<br />
now, and it is impossible that such things can ever occur again. Is not that your opinion?-Yes, that is<br />
right. ·<br />
48791. That being so, your argument drops away altogether. I can quite understand it under the<br />
old regime, but I cannot accept it now as a satisfactory explanation <strong>of</strong> the statement that the price <strong>of</strong><br />
candles has been reduced by the duty ?-I understood you to be speaking <strong>of</strong> the past.<br />
the past.<br />
48792. In Sydney you established a business ?-Yes.<br />
I was speaking <strong>of</strong>
1443<br />
48793. Is it a success ?-It was until last yem·. The Honorable<br />
48794. Under the lJ.. a pound duty ?-No, last yenr was a very bad year indeed for cnndle makers; Tb~'::~n~~ter,<br />
because tallow was so excessively high and the market was flooded with foreign candles which European. 2nd Moy 1883.<br />
makers had n1shed into the market thinking to crush us people out <strong>of</strong> existence.<br />
48795. May it not have been the want <strong>of</strong> money now i'-It may have been that.<br />
48796. They bad not you in their minds at all, it was merely the want <strong>of</strong> money ?-I do not know<br />
that.<br />
48797. You succeeded in Sydney with ld. a pound duty, could not you succeed here, with an<br />
·.ordinary market for tallow, with Id. a pound. Is labour not as dear here as in Sydney ?-~Coals are<br />
cheaper there and labour is much the same, but I explained that the cost <strong>of</strong> distribution was so much<br />
less to us as actual manufacturers. I suppose we conlLl make them as cheap there as here.<br />
48798. You have endeavoured to show that the local article is superior to the imported, and yet<br />
you maintain that a prejudice exists i.n regard to the local article-may not the prejudice be got over, do<br />
you think, by the people using the article ?-It has in very many cases done so. These testimonials that I<br />
have just handed in to you will show that. ·<br />
48799. These are some special candles ?-No, indeed they are not.<br />
48800. Can you explain how it is that last year the amount <strong>of</strong> imports in this a1·ticle was so much<br />
over the previous year-there was £11,114 revenue from it last year, as compared with £5,432 the year<br />
before ; can you explain that large increase in the import <strong>of</strong> candles beyond my explanation that in many<br />
cases the preference is given to the imported article over the local on the simple ground <strong>of</strong> its quality?<br />
No, I do not think I could give any explanation <strong>of</strong> it; but I do not accept your explanation.<br />
48S00a. By JI;Jr • .LYunro.-Those steel pots are specially prepared, are they not-is not there a trade<br />
secret connected with the mixing <strong>of</strong> the metal ?-I think there is.<br />
48801. How many <strong>of</strong> those do you use in a year-would it warrant anybocly establishing a factory<br />
for the purpose <strong>of</strong> making those steel pots ?-I do not think so ; for if we get a good pot it will last three<br />
or four years. The makers at home say a good pot would last eight years or nine years, but we have<br />
no such experience ; but a bad pot lasts only a very short time.<br />
48802, Did you ever attempt to adopt the same principle in Melbourne aE you do in Sydney, namely,<br />
selling directly to importers ?-Certainly. We started business with that intention, but we fonncl that the<br />
importers were too strong for us-that they could either buy from us or leave us alone as they pleased ;<br />
they possessed the large trade and had all the outlets in their own hands all through the colony, and<br />
we found at last that if we wanted to do a candle trade we must go direct to the distributor, and overlook<br />
the importer altogether, who preferred to sell the foreign candle.<br />
48803. Could not he make as much pr<strong>of</strong>it out <strong>of</strong> the colonial candle as out <strong>of</strong> the imported?-We<br />
used to tell him so, but he used to prefer to import. You see the importer is in a peculiar position.<br />
Probably he has a house in I~ondon ; he is a member <strong>of</strong> a large house, and the house in London a.re buying<br />
other things engaging freight, ha.ving insurance rebates, and many little things <strong>of</strong> different kind~, it suits<br />
the buyer at home to buy largely, candles as well, upon which he charges 2~ per cent. commission, and he<br />
ships them all out to the house here, ani! the house here have to get through them. That applies to a great<br />
many <strong>of</strong> the houses here, and, therefore, until the houses here become thoroughly convinced by experience,<br />
that it does not pay them to import foreign candles and sell against the local manufacturer, they will not<br />
think <strong>of</strong> entering into an arrangement with the colonial manufacturer <strong>of</strong> an exclusive character; and it has<br />
been the task <strong>of</strong> manufacture1·s for the last three or four or five years to convince the importing houses that<br />
it is not to their advantage to import candles, and last year this company lost thousands <strong>of</strong> pounds in the<br />
contest.<br />
48804. 'Vhat is the capital <strong>of</strong> the Company ?-£200,000.<br />
48805. Has it ever paid any dividends ?-It has paid one ; the new company has only been<br />
established a year.<br />
48806. Do you attribute last year's loss to the market being glutted. with imported candles ?-Yes,<br />
I do.<br />
48807. Being sold at a loss ?-Yes, no doubt, and the high price <strong>of</strong> tallow.<br />
48808. Do you see any prospect <strong>of</strong> being able to cultivate that connection ?-I do ; I always hope<br />
to do it.<br />
. 488.09. In Sydney the consumer would get the benefit ?-If the importers and large houses would<br />
m:1.ke a contract with the Apollo Company to take from them so many boxes a year, the company would<br />
make a contract with them never to sell a box, except through them, and then they could put them at a<br />
low price the same as in Sydney. It simply means using their staff to distribute candles.<br />
48810. You do not object to paying this duty upon machinery that you use in your factory, do you?<br />
-No.<br />
4881 L Have you any objection to mention the yearly output <strong>of</strong> candles by your company ?-I would<br />
mention it in u moment if I knew it, but I do not know what it is.<br />
48812. By the Chai~·mcm.-Did I understand you to say to Mr. Mcintyre that it was next- to<br />
impossible now for importers to form a ring to manipulate the market for candles?-Yes, undoubtedly, they<br />
could not do it,<br />
4.8813. So that that aspect <strong>of</strong> the case has passed away ?-Utterly. The moment they formed a<br />
ring they would have the candle companies down upon them in a moment, and down goes the price.<br />
48814. But I mean, assuming thut the candle companies were away, would the other appliances<br />
prevent a ring ?-Then we could form a ring, but not so strong or <strong>of</strong> such long duration as formerly.<br />
488L"i. Becfluse <strong>of</strong> the readier means <strong>of</strong> communication?-Yes.<br />
48816. Byilfr. lVlunTo.-Is it not customary in all trades, especially in England, for them to meet<br />
monthly or weekly to tt
··1444<br />
'rlle'Honorli:bte 48820. By .Ll'ir. 1rlunro.-What do you attribute the high price <strong>of</strong> tallow to at the present moment?-<br />
Tho,!a;,.~er, To the high price in London-a, scarcity. in the London market. ·· · .·<br />
2rldMa,r·l88a. 48821. Is it shipped from here to London ?-It is shipped from here to London.<br />
48822. You are rulell by it ?-Entirely. · .·<br />
48823. By the Chairman.-Have you anything further to add upon any point which we have not<br />
elicited ?~I would only say that if the duty upon candles can ever be reduced it must not be reduced at<br />
present. It must be allowed to remain some time yet until the industries are more firmly established. That<br />
is all that I have to say.<br />
48824. By Mr. frlunro.-You are quite satisfied with what it is at present-you do not want any<br />
increase ?-I should be ashamed to ask it.<br />
The tvitness withdrew.<br />
RobertJobnston,<br />
2nd Mayl883.<br />
Robert Johnston sworn aml examined.<br />
48825. By the Chairman.-\Vhat are you ?-An importer.<br />
48826. An importer <strong>of</strong> candles and soap ?:-Candles only.<br />
48827. How long have you been in that business ?-About twenty-two year~.<br />
48828. In this colony ?-In this colony. .<br />
48829. How does the taritr in this colony affect your business in that article ?-It affects it prejudi-<br />
Cially, certainly. ·<br />
48830. In what way does it affect it prejudicially ?-It has diminished the imports.<br />
48831. It reduces the quantity <strong>of</strong> your imports ?-It has reduced it.<br />
48832. Does it interfere with the pr<strong>of</strong>it upon what yen do sell ?-Yes it does.<br />
48833. Considerably ?-:More or less.<br />
48834. You have to be satisfied with less pr<strong>of</strong>it upon what you do sell?-Yes.<br />
48835. And you have to sell a great deal less than you did previously ?-Yes.<br />
48836. What do you wish the Commission to do in relation to this matter ?-In regard to the Tariff,<br />
especially this duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. I have a decided opinion that the duty has raised or steadied the market, but at<br />
a· high level. It has steatliecl the market prices and preventccliluctuation, but the prices that have been<br />
ruling since the duties were imposed have been more steady than in former times under a free-trade tariff.<br />
48837. Is that a disadvantage to you as an importer ?-It.is a disadvantage.<br />
48838. It does not enable you to make the speculations that a fluctuating market gives you ?<br />
Certainly, it has stopped speculation, but it has steadied market prices at a high level to the consumer' .<br />
-±8839. Will you give me what the level <strong>of</strong> prices was before the duty, and the level now !-They<br />
ran""ecl from 8d. up to, during my time, ls. 4cl., during the last twenty-two years. · ··<br />
" 48840. Of conrse they have been much higher than ls. 4cl. ;luring some periods <strong>of</strong> that time ?<br />
I think the price <strong>of</strong> the candle that I import-what, is called the "Neva candle'' was for a short time<br />
ls. 5cl. during a tempomry scl1rcity, and but fbr a very short time.<br />
48841. That was the price before the duty ?-Yes.<br />
48842. What is the level <strong>of</strong> the price now ?-The price during the last few years-say during the<br />
last five years-<strong>of</strong> imported candles generally (I do not refer to Nevas) has been between 8cl. and 9d., until<br />
recently, when they have been a little dearer. ·<br />
· 48843. Leaving out the present moment as being an abnormal state <strong>of</strong> the market, which is allowed<br />
by the manufacturers as well, and taking your statement <strong>of</strong> 8d. and 9d. as the ordinary level, how do you<br />
call that a high level as against Bel. to Is. 4d. ?-1£ there were no duty the level would be lowered, that is<br />
my meaning.<br />
48844. But that was not yom statement. Your statement was that the dnty fixe(l them at a high<br />
level, it had steadied the market at a high level ; what you meant to say was that it had fixed them at a<br />
lower level than originally, but still higher than they would ·be if there were no duty at all-is that what<br />
von meant to say ?-Exactly.<br />
· 48845. How much lower would they be, in your judgment, if the duty were removed ?-I should say<br />
in the last eight or ten years imported candles such as Dntch, Belgian, or French, excepting Nevas,<br />
could have been imported and sold in boxes at a pr<strong>of</strong>it from 7c1. to 7~d. a lb.<br />
48846. What have they been sold at ?-They have been sold in those times at about 8~d. duty paid,<br />
that is 6~d. in bond. . ,<br />
48847. If they were sold at 6~cl. in bond, and paid 2d. duty, it does not require much stretch <strong>of</strong><br />
imagimtion to know that they would sell at a great pr<strong>of</strong>it for 7·~d., without the duty ?-The price at home<br />
a few years ago, for a series <strong>of</strong> years, when tallow was very cheap and when these Dutch and Belgian<br />
candles were being invoiced, was as low as 5!d. f. o. b., in London.<br />
48848. Can you explain to the Commission how it is that all the evidence not only taken here<br />
to-clay from manufacturers and also from yourself, but also taken from the purchasers in country districts,<br />
goes to prove that the imported candle, though there is 2cl. a pmmd upon it, is never more than a penny<br />
above the colonial one ?-I did not catch the question, please repeat.<br />
48849. How is it that the imported candle is not more than 2d. a pound more than the colonial,<br />
seeing thflt this duty is 2cl. a pound ?-They have been sold, I suppose, for som0years at a loss.<br />
48850. What is the object <strong>of</strong> the importers in selling cru:tdles at a loss ?-I cannot say ; they have<br />
got to keep the manufacturers going at home the same as they have here.<br />
48851. Under what obligation a-rc our importing honses to keep English houses going before keeping<br />
onr manufactories going ?-From the manufacturer's point <strong>of</strong> view, <strong>of</strong> course, I cannot say.<br />
48852. I do not ask that ; you say the importers here must keep the manufacturing houses going in<br />
England. I ask you what obligation are they under to do that ?-I do not say so. I do not say the<br />
importers must keep the manufactnrers going. I say the mannfactmers must keep the works going at home ;<br />
they send their surplus stocks out here, I suppose sometimes at a loss, sometimes with the hope <strong>of</strong> making a<br />
little pr<strong>of</strong>it ; they are making a little pr<strong>of</strong>it now.<br />
48853. Is that answer <strong>of</strong> yours that they have been sold at a loss, the only answer you have to give<br />
to the fact that the cost <strong>of</strong> the English article is only half the difference made by the duty between it and<br />
~he colonial ?-No, I think it is the cost <strong>of</strong> the English article, with the full duty.
1445<br />
48854. No, all the evidence we have got goes to show that the English article is a penny a pound: RubertJobnston,<br />
dearer than the colonial, whereas if it were the whole <strong>of</strong> the duty dearer it would be 2d. a pound dearer? 2n~~~;'i!i82,<br />
-I cannot explain that.<br />
48855. That is the evidence <strong>of</strong> miners who purchase the candles. I have been looking through the<br />
evidence just now. It is the evidence <strong>of</strong> the manufacturers as to the prices in l\!Ielbonrne to-clay and<br />
for many years past, and it is your own evidence also as to the relative prices <strong>of</strong> candles now ?-I<br />
suppose the answer to that is that between those candles which only have a penny difference between the<br />
locally-made article and the imported article virtually there is only a penny difference in quality.<br />
48856. But I am assuming candles are the same quality; because, if you b1·ing in the question <strong>of</strong> quality<br />
you knock the question <strong>of</strong> price out <strong>of</strong> time altogether-you eau only calculate prices upon equal qualities.<br />
I take the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Kitchen, for instance, upon the quality <strong>of</strong> candle which is 8~d. in bond and<br />
lO~d duty paid, and the quality <strong>of</strong> that which he makes to take the place <strong>of</strong> it in the market, and sells<br />
at fi·om 9~d. to 9~d. as the case may be. Now that is only a cli:ffereuce <strong>of</strong> a penny a pound between the<br />
two articles, though the duty is 2d. a pouncl ?-The consumers Illi'tintain by the price they pay that<br />
the imported candle is better than the colonial-made article ; they have always maintained that, and<br />
backed up their opinion by giving the difference in price.<br />
48857. Do you wish the Commission to suppose that if the 2d. were reduced upon that particular<br />
article selling at lO~d. to-clay, or if the duty were <strong>of</strong>f, that article would sell for 8lcl. ?-I believe it would<br />
upon the average. I believe it would sell for 8~d. over a series <strong>of</strong> months or a series <strong>of</strong> years. The competition<br />
among importers would be so increased that we should have hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> boxes<br />
coming out here. I think the public would gain over a period <strong>of</strong> time in the duty.<br />
48858. Have you got a list <strong>of</strong> prices that you have been selling at, say over a period <strong>of</strong> twenty<br />
years, ten years before the duty, and ten years since ?-No, I have not a list with me.<br />
. 48859. Could you furnish the Commission with your price-list, say over that period ?-Some books<br />
<strong>of</strong> my old firm have been destroyed, some <strong>of</strong> the books about twenty years ago. The firm has been changed<br />
several times, but I shoulcllike to say that the price we have received for candles-the candle that I represent<br />
has, on the average, been about lld. to ls. during the last twenty years. That is the average price.<br />
48860. That is the Neva, the particular one you sell ?-Yes, and for other candles, Belgium and<br />
Dutch candles, the average price during teu years has been 9d. to lOd. I know for a fact that thousands<br />
<strong>of</strong> boxes have been sold at 8d. a lb.<br />
48861. Now, suppose this duty were removed, and you got bMk your old trade in candles, how<br />
many more hands would you employ in your business ?-I do not think I should employ any more. Perhaps<br />
one or two more, certainly that, but not more. Including draymen and all I s.nppose two or three more.<br />
. 48862. By ll'lr-. J.1fclntyre.-I want to understand the "steadying <strong>of</strong> the market." You say the<br />
market has been " steadied " by this duty?-Yes. .<br />
48863. That is as compared with former times when there were more difficulties in communication<br />
with the old country than there are now ?-Certainly, there is no possible analogy between the present<br />
times and former times.<br />
48864. Without this duty at all, would not this market be a steady market ?-It would.<br />
48865. On account <strong>of</strong> the facility <strong>of</strong> comm1mication ?-Yes.<br />
48866. Then that point goes to the wall ?-There would be rnore or less :fluctuation, but it would<br />
not last more than six weeks or two months; it is quite impossible for anything to come up to a fancy price<br />
now.<br />
48867. You told the Chairman that during the last seven or eight years camUes could have been<br />
sold at 7~d. a lb.?-Yes, not the Nevas, but candles that compete with Messrs. Kitchen's or the Apollo.<br />
4!:l868. The Nevas are all a superior quality ?-Superior altogether, they do not compare ~with the<br />
others.<br />
48869. The candle you speak <strong>of</strong> now is equal, in your mind, if not superior, to the colonial article<br />
during the last seven or eight years could have been selling for 7!d. a lb. in your opinion ?-Yes.<br />
48870. What have they been selling at ?-About 8id. to 9d., sometimes 9~d., and as low<br />
as 8d.<br />
48871. The consumer all this time has been paying from ld. to lid. a lb. in excess <strong>of</strong> the value <strong>of</strong><br />
the article ?-Undoubtedly, I entirely believe that.<br />
48872. What is the home price <strong>of</strong> tallow at present-<strong>of</strong> the ordinary kind ?-About 46s. to 47s.<br />
per cwt.<br />
48873. Give us the price <strong>of</strong> c::mdles per pound ?-There has been a rise dming the last two or<br />
three months, and I have been told they are as high as 7 d. a lb.<br />
48874. In England?-Yes.<br />
48875. Ordinary candles ?-Yes.<br />
48876. What is that class <strong>of</strong> candles selling at here now ?-At from lOd. to IO!cl.-say about<br />
10~d.<br />
48877. The people in the colony where tallow is so plentiful are paying about 3td. a lb. more than<br />
in the old country ?-They are paying 2! a lb. more, because the cost <strong>of</strong> importing and freight ancl insurance<br />
is, in round numbers, about ld. a lb,<br />
48878. You have been here during the evidence to-day ?-Yes.<br />
48879. And heard the evidence about the qua,lity <strong>of</strong>the colonial article ?-Yes.<br />
48880. Can you explain how it iB that the importers 'still continue to import so largely and sell at a<br />
penny a pound more than the colonial article if the quality is no better than the colonial ~trticle ?-I think<br />
the public at large, miners and domestic consumers, ancl the trade and everyone else admit that the imported<br />
candles are superior, and they give a better price for them.<br />
48881. Have you ever tested the two candles, one alongside the other, both good and carefully<br />
protected from draughts, and so on, to see which burned the longest ?-I think I have.<br />
48882. What was the result ?-As far as my own candle goes, they were about the same, but that<br />
is only one test among a score <strong>of</strong> the quality <strong>of</strong> the candle.<br />
48883. That is the first one. Now, as to the longevity <strong>of</strong> the candle, they nre about alike ?-Yes,<br />
all candles are about alike.
R~b~~t Jo)Jnsto~, 48884. What was the ilh1mfuating power <strong>of</strong> the one as compru:ecl with the other ?-As regards the<br />
2n~~i:fy"f~sa. Neva candle, my own, it is very much superior, both as to durability and light. Between other imported<br />
candles and the colonial Petrolines and Apollos there is but little difference.<br />
48885. Did yon try the de Ronbaix against the colonial ?-I cannot remember.<br />
48886. You are just speaking now <strong>of</strong> your best candle ?-Yes.<br />
48887. Under that statement, it would appear that the local manufactured candle compares very<br />
favourably even with your best Neva candle; was that so ?-It is the first time I ever heard that.<br />
4!5888. It is your own evidence, if I understand you right ?-The difference in Petroline and Apollo<br />
candles for the last three or four years has been ~d. a pound.<br />
48889. I understood you to say that the length <strong>of</strong> burning <strong>of</strong> the two candles was about equal to the<br />
N eva candle. Then you tested it against the colonial one ?-Yes.<br />
48890. The Neva was the same, as to length, but its illuminating power is better ?-Certainly it<br />
was.<br />
48891. Have you any idea <strong>of</strong> the comparative illuminating power over the other ?-No, I never tested<br />
that.<br />
48892. It is merely your own judgment?--Yes. Of course I test it by the opinion <strong>of</strong> consumers<br />
! get that every day.<br />
48893. Suppose that this duty were reduced 1d. a pound, would the consumer get the benefit <strong>of</strong> that<br />
1d. ?-I think the consumer would, and the revenue would get the benefit <strong>of</strong> it, too.<br />
48894. Would the revenue lose much ?-There would be more candles imported.<br />
48895. But would th~e importation not interfere with the established industries <strong>of</strong> the colony, which<br />
<strong>of</strong> course is a matter to be considered ?-It would to a certain extent interfere, if very large quantities came<br />
out; it would interfere with the colonial industry.<br />
48896. \Vould it not be an impetus for those colonial manufacturers to endeavour to meet the demand<br />
and endeavour to keep out the imported article ?-Certainly.<br />
48897. By Mr. Munro.-What is the average price-you say lld. to 12cl. for twenty years-can<br />
you give us an average for five years under free-trade and five years since ?-No; I have not got the exact<br />
figures ; I only talk from memory, but I know the average before the duties were imposed at all, that is<br />
before the Id. a pound duty was about Is. a pound.<br />
48898. What has been the average since the duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound was imposed ?-It has been, I<br />
suppose, about 10d. to IO~d.<br />
48899. Then the price <strong>of</strong> candles is really c:[leaper with the duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound than before ?-The<br />
price <strong>of</strong> tallow has fallen in the meantime immensely.<br />
48900. That is not an answer, is it. You say, before the imposition <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound, the average price<br />
for five years was Is., while since the imposition <strong>of</strong> 2d. a pound, the average price was 10d.; that is your<br />
evidence, is it not; so that, in point <strong>of</strong>fact, candles are cheaper since the 2d. a pound than they were before?<br />
-It was owing to the price <strong>of</strong> tallow; that is the sole secret <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
48901. B.lf the Chainnan.-Have you anything further to add ?-I think the colonial makers have<br />
an advantage in the price <strong>of</strong> tallow in the colony as compared with the London price, that is to the extent <strong>of</strong><br />
about £8. a tou. They have that protection at present, and that that has been a general difference is<br />
:1cknowledged by the trade.<br />
48902. £8 a ton between t
c<br />
1447<br />
are sold at 10d., that would be an average <strong>of</strong> 7-§-d., whereas with the duty now, 100,000 boxes would be sold RobertJohuston,<br />
at 8d.; that is when candles are cheap. I refer to three or four years ago. In that case the public would 2 n:~::;'i:iss.<br />
have been the gainers.<br />
48918. Of course, upon those figures, you make it out that the public would get the advantage<br />
<strong>of</strong> !d. upon each pound ; but you might easily take another set <strong>of</strong> figures (or anyone else could) and show<br />
that the public lose ~d., or even I d. a pound, by the fluctuations <strong>of</strong> the market ?-I do not think the public<br />
would lose now; I think they would gain.<br />
The witness ~vithd,rew.<br />
The Hon. Thomas Loader further examined.<br />
The Witness.-One statement has been made by the last witness that I think requires to be The Hon.<br />
explained. If you would allow me I should like to explain it. It is one <strong>of</strong> the utmost importance. The last T~':?'~~;~~a:•<br />
witness mentioned that the clifferenee between the price <strong>of</strong> tallow in this market and London gave a duty<br />
or protection <strong>of</strong> £8 per ton in favor <strong>of</strong> the local manufacturer. I am prepared to say that he is mistaken.<br />
He has spoken from imperfect information. That such a difference as that exists between the two markets<br />
is quite true, but it is not ~~protection in favor <strong>of</strong> the local manufacturer, and it is necessary for me to·<br />
explain why. In dealing 1vith a ton <strong>of</strong> tallow, the local manufacturer obtains therefrom about 52 per cent.<br />
<strong>of</strong> stearine, which he ean manufaetnre into a candle <strong>of</strong> a quality equal to the European makes that come to<br />
this market. The remaining 48 per cent. consists partly <strong>of</strong> an article called oleic for which there is no<br />
market in Australia; 48 per cent. <strong>of</strong> the whole is oleic, and that oleic has to be shipped to London, where<br />
under many adverse circumstances <strong>of</strong> freight and packages, leakages, and so forth, it barely nets the candle<br />
manufacturer more than £13 a ton, so that the total quantity <strong>of</strong> one ton <strong>of</strong> tallow yields 52 per cent., which<br />
is manufactured into candles on this side <strong>of</strong> the water, and 40 per cent. which has to be sold at the net<br />
result <strong>of</strong> about £13 a ton in London, while the manufacturer here has given £36 a ton for the whole <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
So you see how dangerous a witness, who states from imperfect information, may be to a great industry,<br />
unless his statements be explained away.<br />
48919. By l~fr. J.lfclrttyre.-We had the same evidence, this morning, from Mr. Kitchen exactly<br />
word for word, given by the late witness, Mr. Johnston ; are we to understand .that a ton <strong>of</strong> tallow here is<br />
not the same as a ton <strong>of</strong> tallow at home ?-I am not speaking <strong>of</strong> a ton <strong>of</strong> crude raw tallow; I speak <strong>of</strong> a ton<br />
<strong>of</strong> tallow andlts products. ·<br />
48920. The products <strong>of</strong> a ton <strong>of</strong> tallow must be alike here and in London ?-I beg your pardon,<br />
there is a great difference.<br />
48921. Are we to understand that a ton <strong>of</strong> tallow, which you buy here for your manufacture, is not<br />
the same as a ton <strong>of</strong> tallow in London ?-The tallow is all the same, but the products are in different<br />
markets. The product in this market, as I have explained, has 40 per cent. <strong>of</strong> it to be conveyed to<br />
Europe; but if the same tallow is distilled in Europe the product is there and has not to be conveyed, and<br />
if it goes home in the form <strong>of</strong> tallow it goes under the most favourable form, and there it is sold in the<br />
market where the oleic brings £26 a ton. If it were possible for you to guarantee to the manufacturers here<br />
£26 a ton for all their oleic, they could then do without the duty upon candles. But it is exactly the<br />
difference that they must lose about £13 a ton upon all their oleic sent home.<br />
48922. By the Chairman.-That is 40 per cent. <strong>of</strong> the tallow ?-That is 40 per cent. <strong>of</strong> the tallow;<br />
and, therefore, if they pass through 100 tons or tallow through their stills they have to send home about<br />
38 or 40 tons to Europe, where they only net about £13 a ton.<br />
48923. By Mr. _ilf'clntyre.-It does not alter the facts at all ?-I do not want it to alter the<br />
facts.<br />
48924. We the consumers, at all events, are paying for the fact that we cannot utilise our oleic<br />
here ?-That is quite right. I only wanted to explain Mr .• Johnston's evidence.<br />
The witness 'Withdrew.<br />
John Lorimer sworn and examined.<br />
489 25." By the Chairman.-You represent the firm <strong>of</strong> Connell, Hogarth, and Company ?-Yes.<br />
48926. Is this firm an importer <strong>of</strong> candles ?-We do not import many.<br />
48927. Have you any evidence to add to the evidence that Mr. Johnston gave on this article <strong>of</strong><br />
candles ?-No.<br />
48928. Are you content to accept his evidence for your firm a~ being a sufficiently reliable repre.<br />
sentation <strong>of</strong> the case from an importer's point <strong>of</strong> view ?-Our interest as importers is so small that I<br />
could not speak <strong>of</strong> it in that light at all. We are merely distributors <strong>of</strong> candles ; we buy in this<br />
market mostly, it does not pay us to import.<br />
48929. Then the duty does not affect you ?-Not at all.<br />
48930. You do not 1>'ish to propose any alteration in the duty ?-No, it does not affect us.<br />
48931. By ~wr. 11fuwro.-Do you find it quite as pr<strong>of</strong>itable now to buy locally as you did to<br />
import ?-Yes ; the pr<strong>of</strong>it is more regular to huy in the market.<br />
48932. The only advantage would be in a large shipment to make up a freight hy shipping<br />
candles ?-Sometimes we would huy them expecting to make a pr<strong>of</strong>it in this market, and when they<br />
came to hand we might make a loss. It is a very dangerous article to deal with.<br />
48933. By Mr. Mcintyre.-As an importer you say the reduction <strong>of</strong> the duty would not affect<br />
you ?-Not a bit.<br />
The witn,ess witl
1448<br />
THURSDAY, 3RD MAY,1883.<br />
Present:<br />
JAlliES MIRA!IIS, Esq., M.L.A., in the Chair;<br />
.T. Bosisto, Esq., M.L.A,., I J. Mcintyre, Esq., M.L.A.,<br />
F. 8. Grimwade, Esq., D. Munro, Esq.,<br />
Hon. James Lorimer, M.L.C.,<br />
J. A. Woodward, Esq.<br />
DYERS' MATERIAI.S.<br />
John Ro bertson sworn and examined.<br />
Jobnllobert3on, 48934. By the G'hairman.-vVhat are you ?-A dyer and scourer.<br />
llrd 1\!ay !883. 48935. Your place <strong>of</strong> business is in Lonsdalc street ?-Yes.<br />
48936. How many hands are you employing ?-Fourteen females and thirteen males.<br />
48937. You are anxious to put some question before the Commission in connexion with the matter<br />
<strong>of</strong> soap, which, I believe, largely enters into your business ?-Yes.<br />
48938. What is it you desire to say ?-I consider the duty should be <strong>of</strong>f oil soap, considering the<br />
high price at home; aml the colonial soap being so much cheaper, we could not use it, even if we wanted to.<br />
Our soap costs at home £30 a ton. .<br />
48939. You use oil soap ?-Yes, that is what all dyers are obliged to use.<br />
48940. You say in your paper that it costs 2d. a lb. duty, and cannot be made in the colony suitable<br />
for dyeing ?-Yes, it cannot be made.<br />
48941. Have you tried getting it here ?-Yes, and I have given them samples, but I cannot get it<br />
made. I have usecl oil soap that the Apollo Company made here, but it is only fit for coarse work, it is not<br />
fit for fine work.<br />
48942. How much <strong>of</strong> this do you use in the course <strong>of</strong> the year· ?-Not a Yery great de>tl. We<br />
should use more were it not for the expense <strong>of</strong> it..<br />
48943. But how much ?~-I do not think more thrm about 30 cwt.<br />
48944. Is that the only nrticle you specify ?-I think they should be a little easier upon the<br />
machinery here, in getting out the flrst machine in a trade like ours, where fashions change, and the appli•<br />
ances have to be altered according to the fashions and the make <strong>of</strong> the material.<br />
48945. You return the value <strong>of</strong> your plant at about £2,500 ?-Yes.<br />
48946. Has any portion <strong>of</strong> that been made in the colony ?-Yes.<br />
48947. Half <strong>of</strong> it-would half <strong>of</strong> it be colonial made and the other half imported ?-I think about<br />
that. I may say that some machines I got from home, and got machines made <strong>of</strong>f them here stronger, and<br />
stronger than the imported, but !1S the f
1449<br />
duty th11t is upon fhinnels-is that wha,t you propose ?-No, I do not want it at 11H, but I do not John Robertson,<br />
. continued.<br />
see wlw it should<br />
3rd May 1883,<br />
48961. That is m10thel' question. Is there 11ny other matter that you do<br />
except what<br />
I mentioned about the machineTy.<br />
48962. By "~fr. Afclnty1·e.-Suppose this idea <strong>of</strong> yours were Cltrriml out, and that we shonltl put a<br />
tax upon all the dyed i1annel importell, would the Jyers' trmle be increased at all ?-Yes,<br />
48963. \Vonld mauy more men be ernploye(l ?-Yes, a many more.<br />
48864. Have you any idea <strong>of</strong> how many more men would be employed if all dyed material were<br />
taxeLl ?-I will give you an ideo,. Sargootl's people sent to me, he w
Joim Robertson,<br />
1450<br />
40001. Have they no special names ?-No, entirely different names, according to the different<br />
ar~~~;~~sa. fashions. For instance, I have a steam arm which is a advantage in finishing. I threw away<br />
altogether the imported one and got them made about three or four times the weight.<br />
49002. Could
1451<br />
49028. But also the value?-Yes ; the true value is not there, am! that falsifies our account <strong>of</strong> J. P. Goutstone.<br />
continued, ·<br />
exportations. Srcl Mn.y 1883.<br />
49029. How coul1l that be rectified-what menus have the Customs <strong>of</strong> knowing the true value?-<br />
Thev have no means <strong>of</strong> checking it.<br />
" · 49030. Except they compel the exporters to prolluee t.he invoice:'\ ?-If they matle them, in the<br />
decbratiou for export, declare that the value was a correct one as well as Lleclaring that those goods were<br />
not the produce <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong>, I think that might apply.<br />
49031. For the year 1881-that is the last year for which I have a fnll record-the total weight <strong>of</strong><br />
tea put down as exported is 4,111,838 lbs., and the valne pnt opposite to that is £292,606, equal to nearly<br />
ls. 6d. a pound ; now, in your opinion, that tea w>ts not worth >tnything like so much as £292,000 ?-It would<br />
not be worth anything like two-thirds <strong>of</strong> that money, tnkiug the avemge <strong>of</strong> the imports <strong>of</strong> tea into this<br />
colony.<br />
49032. By Mr. Mclntyre.-Just follow that up. What object can the exporters have in overvaluing<br />
these articles ?-Nothing more than to exhibit they are doing a very large trade in really fine-class<br />
teas, which is not the case.<br />
49033. But does it affect any one in the community, that they should please themselves by this?<br />
I do not know that it does, except that it is merely an adverti.'!ement to the local grocer to a certain extent.<br />
The Customs returns, <strong>of</strong> course, >tre reliable as to weight, but, I think, anybody in the trade here would<br />
know that average <strong>of</strong> our tea exported does not reach ls., let alone l s. 6d. a pound, upon the average.<br />
49034. Then the colony would not stand so high in the export list ?-Not in tea, at any rate.<br />
49035. ~What is your ide>t in regard to a reduction <strong>of</strong> the duties upon te>t-wonld a reduction benefit<br />
you in business ?-It would le>tve us fJ;.Ce, in all senses, to work.<br />
49036. What do you mean by that '1-0f course we should be free <strong>of</strong> h>tving to >tdnnce money for<br />
duties in the first place. In the second place, as to blenders and packers, we should be able to blend<br />
through the whole house, whereas the trade now are rather doubtful <strong>of</strong> anything unless it is delivered<br />
stmight from bond. ~ ~<br />
49037. If" reduction in duty were nmde would the public get the benefit <strong>of</strong> it ?-Judging from<br />
experience, when the last 3d. a pound was taken <strong>of</strong>f, I say decidedly not. I think the grocers' pr<strong>of</strong>its on<br />
tea,, to-clay, are very considerably in adYance <strong>of</strong> wlmt they were before the duties were taken <strong>of</strong>f. I do not<br />
think the consmners got one fraction <strong>of</strong> benefit from it.<br />
49038. vVhat was tile buaiuess <strong>of</strong> this remark. Your business consists <strong>of</strong> "what we call blending<br />
and packing under recognised brands." Now, by blending, the Commission understands a mixing <strong>of</strong> lots<br />
<strong>of</strong> clitierent teas, grown in different places ?-Yes.<br />
4!)039. As to any one here importing the article from those places direct, I can tmderstand it, but<br />
what; do you mean by "packing under recognised Lrands." Do you brand the article you blend here as the<br />
Oriental Tea Company's JYiixtm·e, :Melbourne ?-We brand it as either "Roy>t! Blend," "Standard,"<br />
" Challenge," or " Universal,'' as the case may be.<br />
4!)040. Is there a company outside the colony that you are aware <strong>of</strong>?-N o.<br />
49041. Then the sole business <strong>of</strong> the company is to import tea here >tml to blend it here. Why cla<br />
not they say that the operation takes place in Melbourne ?-All onr advertisements have th!tt te:1dency.<br />
4!)042. What tendeucy ?-They have our address upon them, as the central place <strong>of</strong> blendmg for the<br />
colonies.<br />
49043. Does not the packing case convey the ide>t to the puLlic that they are imported in the shape<br />
that they sec them ?-No, the package is totally different from the imported case in every way-that is<br />
both the wrapper and the package.<br />
4!)04±. Are those brauds known in the home market ?-No, they are known where we intro(luce<br />
them only. ·<br />
49045. They are your own brands ?-They are our own brands, registered.<br />
49046. There is no imitation <strong>of</strong> any brands ?-There is no imitation <strong>of</strong> any brands. We guarantee<br />
those brands as being up to st>tndard qualities.<br />
49047. And it is recognised then, throughout the trade now, 'ohat a certain brand upon one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Oriental tea chests, conveys a certain class <strong>of</strong> tea to them 7-It does. It is known all through <strong>Victoria</strong><br />
tlmt the "Univers!tl" tea is the accepted 2s. mixture.<br />
49048. Have you any trouble in denling with the midtlle men <strong>of</strong> the colony ?-Decidedly, a great deal<br />
with the grocers.<br />
49049. What is the n>tture <strong>of</strong> the trouble ?-They give various grouuds for it.<br />
49050. But what is the trouble in the first place ?-If they <strong>of</strong>fered our known brands and people<br />
came to like them and to know them, there is nothing to prevent a greengrocer, or a baker, or anyone else<br />
supplying them as well as the grocer·. Then, secondly, they say we do not allow them a sufficient margin<br />
<strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it between our fixetl price and their distributing prices, although it varies from 25 to 33 per cent.<br />
49051. Do they put obstacles in the way <strong>of</strong> your distribution?-Yes, and in very peculiar ways in<br />
some cases.<br />
49052. By that means yon do not get your brands into the general grocers' hands at all?-We get a<br />
good few <strong>of</strong> them. We may have, in <strong>Victoria</strong>, 300 or !lOO customers, but we cannot them into the hands<br />
<strong>of</strong> the large grocers, because they say, " We must get our own article into onr customers' hands. We<br />
should lose our distinctive character as grocers ifwe sell yonr teas." I may say th>tt 99 out <strong>of</strong> 100 storekeepers<br />
in the colony are not grocers, they have not been brot1ght up to the t-rade and they know nothing <strong>of</strong><br />
tea blending, and their idea <strong>of</strong> what teas should go together is very snmll indeed.<br />
49053. Do you convey the idea that most grocers wish to Llend their teas themselves ?-Yes,<br />
they clo.<br />
49054. Is that the reason they do not want to use your blends ?-They clo not object to buy them<br />
in bulk. In fact I have known them to bny our packet teas and pull onr wrappers <strong>of</strong>f and put their own on.<br />
49055. And u!le your tea ?-And use our tea. ,<br />
49056. Could there Le any way <strong>of</strong> stopping that interference with your particular L11siness ?-We<br />
cannot, because if they choose to buy our te>t and open it, we c>tnnot stop them.<br />
49057. But if the public is deceivetl, they mny not, get so good a blend as you give thOln ?-We have<br />
l19 me!tllfl <strong>of</strong> stopping it, lmt if they falsify our brands we h&ve. We had two cases where some parties
.r. P. G?ulstune, were pack;ng nncler the "Orient Tea Companv'' bnand ; we stopped t.hem; and another person who put<br />
zr~ 0 :f~~uf~im. them under our " Challenge'' and "Stamlard''lJrauds, npon our bringing them before the party who was<br />
packilJg them, he at once stopped it.<br />
-19058. Is your trade increttsing ?-It io greatly increasing, though since we st.arted I cannot tell you<br />
how many rival firms have st.arted packing, nncl others buy teas from Chinn packed there. But the trade<br />
has gmdnally increased, last yettr more especially QUl' trade increased a good 25 per cent.<br />
49059. Are there a number <strong>of</strong> tea blenders in the city ?-Yes, a number now, but none npou the<br />
same principle as onrsel ves. vV e select teas to suit our brands, but I think the majority merely pack wh!;tt<br />
suits their stocks.<br />
49060. By JYfr. Grimwade.-As to passing those entries and pHtting the incorrect value upon them,<br />
are you not liable to a fine ?-No, not at all, the Customs ha.ve no control ovet· it. They only recognise<br />
the quantity <strong>of</strong> toa at a fixed rate <strong>of</strong> duty. '<br />
49061. In passing entries <strong>of</strong> other things, if you pass them at a wrong value, you are liable to a<br />
penalty?-That is in importing.<br />
49062. Or exporting ; is not that so, Mr. Drysdale? If you overvalue, either carelessly or intentionally,<br />
are you not liable to a fine ?-(Mr. Drtjsdale )-I do not know that you are, but the clerk has to be<br />
careful in getting the val!le.<br />
49063. B.t! the Chai1·man.-Bnt if the duty had been an ad valorem and the drawback were<br />
according to valu3, you would. have to mo,ke a declaration according to value?-Yes, but it is only upon the<br />
qnantity.<br />
49064. Does that apply only to import ?-It applies both to drawback and to expm"t entries.<br />
49065. B!l the Hon. Jrfr. Lorime1·.-I see there is a penalty•for false declaration, and I see upon the<br />
baek <strong>of</strong> the entry it is plain that the value is part <strong>of</strong> the declaration T!te witness)-! do not think the<br />
value is part <strong>of</strong> the declaration.<br />
49066. Bp Mr. Jffcintyre.-There is the penalty <strong>of</strong> perjury ?-But there is no penalty in this case.<br />
There is a form <strong>of</strong> declaration upon the back <strong>of</strong> the export entry.<br />
49067. B,.J the Hon. Mr. Lorime1·.-Yon have had large experience as a tea merchant, have you<br />
not ?-I have been engaged in the. trade now about twenty-seven or twenty-eight years.<br />
49068. In the direct trade as well as in the mixing business both.<br />
49069. Selling original packages ?-Yes.<br />
49070. Can you give us your views as to whether the public are better protected with a duty upon<br />
the ten,, with Customs supervision attendant on the duty, or if it were altogether free?-With regard to<br />
teas, I think they are very much better protected by the Customs.<br />
49071. Will you explain the practice, when tea is bonded, with regard to weights ?-Generally they<br />
take a percentage <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> packages forming a line, then m1lculate the gross and tare, and take the<br />
average.<br />
49072. And that is maue out upon the certificates ?-Yes.<br />
49073. Then the tea being sold in bond, the public are protected by the weights upon the certificates?<br />
-They are.<br />
49074. Is it not a fact that the trade generally prefer a duty on that account ; it prevents dispute?<br />
-They do.<br />
49075. The weights arc guaranteed by the Customs supervision ?-That might apply more<br />
especially to China packages, which are pretty nearly <strong>of</strong> an average weight in a break; but with Indian<br />
packages, in the same parcel, even if it is only a matter <strong>of</strong> twenty chests from a garden, I have found<br />
them to vary from twelve to twenty pounds in the weight <strong>of</strong> a package. ·<br />
49076. Do not you think the risk <strong>of</strong> adnlteration would he also increased if there were no duty?<br />
I do not think it. In the time I have been in business in the colony, except in the early times,Ihaveseen<br />
very little adulteration; some came in black tea.<br />
49077. But after it has come in-after it gets out <strong>of</strong> bond ?-I do not see how it is to be do1,1e.<br />
49078. A grocer could do it ?-I do not know by whttt means.<br />
49079. It is impossible for the wholesale merchant to do it just now, under the existing plan?<br />
I think it is as possible for him as for the grocer.<br />
49080. How could he do it ?-That is what I say, I do not know how it could be done.<br />
49081. If a man had it in his warehouse would not some system <strong>of</strong> adulteration be possible by<br />
mixing ?-Mixing is not aclnlLeration. Aucl if you sell a mixed tea, and are dealing fairly with a man, you<br />
sell by a sample <strong>of</strong> the mixture. As a rule tea is sold by sample, and you bny the mixed sample <strong>of</strong> tea.<br />
It is done, I believe, in the city-that merchants' packages are used for refilling again, and that a commoner<br />
tea may go out in a package that has conveyed, to this port, a very much finer quality <strong>of</strong> tea. For<br />
instance, I may say that ten may be imported by a house here at a cost <strong>of</strong> 2s. a pound, well known in the<br />
market as a :first crop tea, and those packages would be refilled by a commoner tea, and sent out as first<br />
crop tea.<br />
49082. vVould not thnt be much easier to do if there were no Customs supervision ?-The amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> that done, I think, would be very small.<br />
49083. Would not the plan <strong>of</strong> free tea facilitate it ?-I do not think that it would-it might possibly<br />
-but I do not think it would be done that way. · ·<br />
1452<br />
Tlte witness withdrew.<br />
.rohn Whiting,<br />
3rdMay 1883,<br />
John Whiting sworn and examined •<br />
49084. By the Cl1ai1·man.-What are you ?-Importer.<br />
49085. Of tea ?-Of teas and oilmen's stores.<br />
49086. Tea is t.he question we are on just at the present moment. Did you hear the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr.<br />
Goulstone ?-Yes.<br />
49087. Have yott anything further to add to the eviclence he has given ?-I agree v,1th very much<br />
that Mr. Goulstone stated. I have a very decided opinion that to remove the duty from tea woulll be in<br />
many ways injuriocts.
1453<br />
49088. Have you any reason to assign for that beyond which Mr. Goulstone stated ?-I consider· that<br />
i is a very important matter that the Custom-house should have the supervision <strong>of</strong> teas, and the right <strong>of</strong><br />
opening and examining samples as they come, anti as to seeming the q mdity.<br />
49089. And yon are <strong>of</strong> opinion that the duty fncil(tates · tho!-'e operations ?-I consider that<br />
retaining a duty tmd enabling the Customs to open the P"ckages and to examine for themselves is a guarantee<br />
t.o the trade and to the public generally that we have some good results.<br />
49090. Do I understand you to mean thM if the uuty were removed the Customs wonld not retain<br />
the right to look after the quality ?-I suppose the Customs or the Adulteration Act could be put into<br />
operation so as to attain the same ends.<br />
49091. Whether the duty were removed or not?-·whether the clnty were removed or not.<br />
49092. I am quite aware that under the present laws and regulations there would not be the same<br />
control over free goods as there is over articles paying duty as tea does. Still tea being, as I nnderst~,nd,<br />
from the gentlemen engaged in the trade, an article peculiarly liable to adulteration, it would be possible<br />
to ru.ake a law to seeme ample supervision, would it not ?-I do not think so. I think the remarks <strong>of</strong> Mr.<br />
Lorimer have been very important with regard to keeping teas in bond as much as possible, and<br />
them direct from bond.<br />
49093. Then it is your opinion that the retention <strong>of</strong> the duty f'aciHtates the care <strong>of</strong> the Government<br />
over the qnality <strong>of</strong> the article ?-I clo, certainly,<br />
49094. Does that apply to any other article that you import as well as tea ?-Not. so much in other<br />
:1rticles, bec:1nse tea, having so many qualities, it can be reduced in value by artificial means <strong>of</strong> various kinds.<br />
It i~ very important that an article like tea whose valne extends over perhaps 1s. or 2s. a J30nncl, should<br />
be guaranteed to the public that they get their te:1 in the state in which it is imported.<br />
4H095. From the revelations which have come out to the public jnst lately it does not appear that<br />
the public have much guarantee in this matter <strong>of</strong> tea; would the same principle apply to c<strong>of</strong>fee, for instance?<br />
-No. ·<br />
490~6. There is not the same facility to adulterate c<strong>of</strong>fee ?-Co:ffees are sized. They are known<br />
as No. 1, No. 2, and irregular beans known as "tryage" taken from it, so that iu c<strong>of</strong>fee you can tell at<br />
once from its appearance whether it is No. 1 or No. 2, on account <strong>of</strong> the size and quality.<br />
49097. Have you anything further to add ?-No, not in reference to the matter <strong>of</strong> tea.<br />
4D09R. B,IJ .1lb·. Bosisto.-The teas that the Chinamen go about selling, do you know whether there<br />
is any oversight in reference to those teas; they are sent out, are thev not, in original packages, which they<br />
seH from ?-A certain class <strong>of</strong> tea which they sell is Pouchong, or' faney tea, in packages as packed in<br />
China.<br />
It is sold here in the same state in which it is imported.<br />
4!109~. As a tea merchant, have you ever examined them?-Yes, frequently.<br />
49100. Are they considered to be such tea !ts is represented by th~ Chinamen ?-Yes, there is<br />
nothing to harm in them.<br />
Tl~e witness withd1·ew.<br />
John Whlth1g•<br />
continued,<br />
3rd ~Iay 1883,<br />
0ILniEN's STORES.<br />
John Benjamin Whitty sworn lJ,nCl examinQcl.<br />
4H101. By the Clwirman.-What are you ?-Manufacturers <strong>of</strong> oilmen's stores. John B. Wh!tty,<br />
49102. Where is your factory situated '?-Fitzroy and Richmoml. 8rd May 1883.<br />
49103, You have two establishments ?-Two establishments.<br />
49104, How marry hands are you employing at the two places ?-From 100 to 120.<br />
4910.5. Are there any particular lines that you mnke your specialities ?-Yes, starch and laundry<br />
blue, and blacking are the leading lines.<br />
49106. How many hands had you when you commenced ?-Wh13n we commenced I do not think we<br />
]Jq,cl any.<br />
49107. I do not quite understand thttt ?-We did not employ any at the first commencement.<br />
49108. How long is that ago ?-Some thirteen years ago. :For the :first week or two, perhaps, we<br />
hacl one hand on or two.<br />
49109. By .Mr. Grimwade,--,-Did you work yourself ?-At the acf.ual commencement I suppose you<br />
may say so,<br />
49110. By the Chairman.-Do you employ any females ?-Yes, a large number .<br />
. 49111. How many out <strong>of</strong> the 120 would be females ?-Perhaps 70, or between 70 and 80.<br />
49112. At what age do you take those females on ?-Over twelve. The Act does not allow you to<br />
tak€)<br />
nnder twelve.<br />
49113. Are they apprenticed ?-No, they are not apprenticed.<br />
49114. Do you commence to pay them wages from the beginning ?-From the first clay they work.<br />
49115. At what rate do they start ?-It all depends upon their age. A g1rl at twelve starts at 5s.<br />
a week and gradually works up.<br />
49116. Do they work piece-work ?-Some hands do aud some do not. When they can work piecewar~<br />
we prefer it as most satisfactory both to employers and workm{)n.<br />
49117. When they get np say to eighteen and nineteen years <strong>of</strong> age what is the average wage a<br />
female c:1n earn t,hen ?-Perhaps £1 or 25s.<br />
49118. As much as that ?---:-Yes.<br />
49119. Have you any apprentices boys ?-No, no apprentices at all.<br />
49120. Do you commence to pay the boys at:first?-Yes.<br />
49121. At what rate ?-About 6s.<br />
49122. And when they get to be twenty or twenty~olle<br />
1<br />
what can they earn ?-If they remain<br />
pe1·haps they can earn up to £2~some £2 10s.<br />
· 49123. Yon say, "If they remain>~-Do<br />
rule, are eontinually shifting.<br />
Do go to some other business<br />
the occupation they are at and wish to do something else.<br />
that respect.<br />
generally leave<br />
do not reJTiain very long as a<br />
go to some other business, perhap·s get tired <strong>of</strong><br />
We nre under ~€,'Teat clifficnlties with boys m
John B. Whitty,<br />
IXJntinued.<br />
3rd Mc.y 1888.<br />
14M<br />
49125. Have you any difficulty in getting boys ?-'-Yes, there bt8 been a great clifficlllty these last<br />
twelve months in getting boys and even gil"ls too.<br />
4D126. Does the tariff interfere with your business in any way ?-No, I conld not say that it does.<br />
It has benefited our business.<br />
49127. Has there been recently any increase in the rate <strong>of</strong> duty imposed upon any <strong>of</strong> the lines you<br />
manufacture ?-No, there is only one. I may say we get the great bulk <strong>of</strong> our raw material.iu free. There<br />
is only one article and that is the oils ; the duty was formerly taken <strong>of</strong>f. It was 6d. a gallon. Oil enters<br />
very largely into our manufacturing purposes.<br />
49128. What descriptions <strong>of</strong> oils are they ?-All descriptions <strong>of</strong> oil, castor oil, olive oil, in fact, all<br />
descriptions.<br />
49129. Do you mean to say it was put on again ?-It was put on again, 6d. a gallon.<br />
49130. In 1879 I suppose that would be ?~In 1879.<br />
49131, "Oils including castor or cod hver, when refined or for medicinal purposes, in bottles <strong>of</strong> a<br />
quart or le,;s than a quart-quarts, 2s. ; pints, Is. ?-I speak <strong>of</strong> oil in bulk now.<br />
. 49132. "Oils, animal and vegetable, other than black, cocoanut, cod, palm, in bulk, mineral, re:llned,<br />
Gd. a gallon. Colza and olive !n bulk, 6d. a gallon." The duty you pay is 6c1. a gallon ?-Sixpence a<br />
gallon.<br />
49133. 'l'hat comes to a large item for you ?-In the course <strong>of</strong> twelve months it does. We use large<br />
quantities <strong>of</strong> oil.<br />
49134. Do ymt ask that that. should be removed ?-It would be an advantage, I believe, to the<br />
manufacturing industries <strong>of</strong> the colony, not only to our own, but oil is largely consumed in every factory<br />
almost.<br />
49135. Are any <strong>of</strong> those oils made here ?-I think not. The duty was put on. There are such as<br />
lubricating oils made here, but some <strong>of</strong> the ingredients for that purpose have to pay a duty coming in, I<br />
believe. The duty, I believe, was put on for the benefit <strong>of</strong> an oil factory which started in Simpson's road<br />
and which has since closed, having ceased working. I believe that was the reason why it was put on again;<br />
and I may state that I believe the only oil they manufacturetl wits an oil from candle nuts from Fiji.<br />
4913G. That is the only article which you use upon which you wish the duty <strong>of</strong>f ?-I think that is<br />
the only article we use largely that we pay duty upon.<br />
49137, The others are so small ?-The others are so small that we have really nothing to complain<br />
about.<br />
49138. In relation to the articles that you make, have you any alterations in the duty to propose?<br />
No, I have no wish to alter the duties in any way.<br />
49139. Are there any <strong>of</strong> the articles you manufacture that you could afford the duty to be taken <strong>of</strong>f?<br />
-I could hardly say that.<br />
49140. What is the duty upon starch ?-Twopence a pound.<br />
49141. And the duty upon blue ?-Twopence a pound.<br />
49142. And the same upon blacking ?-No, I think 20 per cent. upon blacking and 20 per cent.npon<br />
most <strong>of</strong> the other articles.<br />
49143. And if those duties were removed or reduced, what would be the result ?-I presume the<br />
result would he that the market here would he flooded with English goods.<br />
49144. You have overcome the prejudice, have you not, that existed against <strong>Victoria</strong>n goods ?-It<br />
takes a long time, but we have overcome the prejudice that existed against colonial articles.<br />
49145. And having done that, and having secured a good demand for your article upon its merits,<br />
would not you be able now to hold your own against the imported article without a duty '1-We might be,<br />
but the great risk would be that the market would be flooded with foreign goods. Only yesterday, as one<br />
instance, a sale at Greig and JYiurray's, a lot <strong>of</strong> starch was sold at 4cl. a pound, so that some one loses a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
money over that.<br />
49146. By .lJfr. Grirnwade.-Was that 4d. duty paid ?~I believe it was.<br />
49147. Was not it in bond?-No, duty paid.<br />
49148. By the Chairman.-What is the normal price <strong>of</strong> starch ?-Our price is 5d. We have been<br />
manufacturing about eighteen months, ancl, previous to om starting, I think it was 6-!cl. a pound-from 6d.<br />
up to 6itl.-I think the price was 6~cl.<br />
49149. Is the starch you are supplying at 5d. a lb. manufactured from the same raw material as<br />
the other ?-From the same raw material as Colman's or the best English makers.<br />
49150. By Mr. Mclntyre.-Is starch a large item in your industry ·?-Yes, it is growing. We have<br />
been only eighteen months manufacturing it.<br />
49151. Have you increased the quantity you manufactured since you started ?-Yes, it is graclually<br />
increasing.<br />
49152. Has the duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a lb. preventecl importation <strong>of</strong> starch in any degree ?-Yes, it must do<br />
while we are manufacturing.<br />
49153. How can you make that out. In the year 1870 the duty was put on. In 18G7 there was a<br />
penny a pound paid upon starch and the total revenue upon it was £3,40G. U mler the present tariff the<br />
revenue is more than double that, so there must be equa.lly as much and more than as much as there was<br />
then. It is still coming into the country ?-The duty is doubled.<br />
49154. But still the article is coming in ?-Still the article is coming in. I instanced 200 cases<br />
sold yesterday. ' .<br />
49155. Then wherein would your industry suffer if we take the duty <strong>of</strong>f or revert to the penny a<br />
pouml duty if there is the same quantity <strong>of</strong> stuff coming in now as came when it was a penny a pound.<br />
How would your industry suffer by going back to a penny a pound ?-There would be more English hnported.<br />
4915G. The fact stares you in the face here that under the two pence a pound duty about a similar<br />
quantity came as at a penny a pound, in fact more comes in now than came in then when there was a penny a<br />
pound on starch. It pays .£3,406 to the revenue undeT the peesent year. The year before last, that is 1880,<br />
the revenue was £7,636, greatly more than double and 1881 £7,213, or more than double ?~If it was<br />
£3,400 and now is £6,000 or £7,000 you can easily understancl why~the duty is double.<br />
49157. Yes, but as much comes in now as came then ?-Then more is being used for we have been<br />
manl:!fa,cturing 4ere the l!l.st eighteen months, and supplying the market 1<br />
so if a:s much co:mes in now fi.S
1455<br />
when we commenced as nmnufacturers, and besides that we suprJly the market it shows a great deal more John ll. Whitty,<br />
conti-nued,<br />
is being used. 3rd Mar 1883.<br />
49158. Then it shows ihat your industry would not suffer. In 1880 it was £7,636, and in the<br />
previous year it was £7,420. vVas anyone else manufacturing starch before you in the colony?-Yes.<br />
49159. And in the face <strong>of</strong> that still the imported article came in here ?-Yes, and no doubt it will<br />
for some time.<br />
49160. Then how would your industry suffer in that pat·ticular branch <strong>of</strong> it by reverting to the<br />
penny a pound duty ?-For the simple reason that the smaller the duty the more would be sent into the<br />
market upon speculation.<br />
· 49161. Then would it benefit you upon your principle to increase the duty ?-Xo, we would not ask<br />
for it. In all things there is a medium.<br />
49162. But upon your statement a great quantity comes in still and is sold at a low price?-Yes,<br />
and no doubt if it were 4d. a pound, some would come still.<br />
491G3. Then why not have a recluction in the duty ?-Merely to protect the industry in the<br />
market here.<br />
4916 1 1. I cannot follow you, you are not protecting the market if the article st.ill comes ?-Yes, I<br />
differ from you, it is protecting it ; if the duty were a farthing a pound, stuff would be rushed into the<br />
market here for speculation, it keeps the market here to a great extent for manufactures.<br />
49165. If that were the case as you say, would not the consumer benefit thereby ?-That is a very<br />
difficult question to answer. No one can answer that. It might or it might not benefit him. All I eau<br />
say is, before we commeuceilmanufacturing, starch, eighteen months ago was 6d. a pound, and now the<br />
consumer gets it for 5cl. .<br />
49166. You do not wish to convoy to the Commission that it is on accmmt <strong>of</strong> your manufacture?<br />
I do not wish to convey anything, I state facts, and the Commission must draw their own conclusions.<br />
49167. And next year it might be 8d. ?-The probability is it will not.<br />
49168. A1·e you such a philanthropist that you wish to decrease your price ?-There is no philanthropy<br />
in the matter at all. If a war should occur, or a scarcity <strong>of</strong> raw material, <strong>of</strong> comse the prices<br />
would go up.<br />
4$1169. You would increase the price <strong>of</strong> your article, would you not ?-That is very doubtful,<br />
because a business man, who keeps his business properly under weigh, knows that the lower he sells the<br />
more he sells-the better for himseif.<br />
49170. But he keeps a margin sufficiently high for himself to protect himself ?-It is a general<br />
tendency in all business to get as much as you cttn perhaps ; but it is not always business to charge so<br />
high as that.<br />
49171. Suppose we went back to ld. a pound duty upon starch, would it affect your business at<br />
all ?-Yes, it would affect the industry.<br />
4H172. In what way ?-It would create a greater competition with the home market.<br />
49173. But would you continue to manufacture that article ?-That we could not say.<br />
49174. Have you a doubt upon that ?--Yes; it is doubtful.<br />
4!l175. Whether you would continue ?-There is a margin upon that now at the price we sell to pav<br />
for working, perhaps; but I doubt if there was Id. a pound duty taken <strong>of</strong>f at present, for the industry<br />
is very young, that it would be continued.<br />
49170. How m
1456<br />
49195. Are you <strong>of</strong> opinion that there should be no variation in the duty, no matter what the starch<br />
3r~~:;;dsea. may be made from ?-I may say that only that one class <strong>of</strong> starch comes in.<br />
49196. But there is the maizena starch coming in, is there not ?-No, it is not brought in now ; it<br />
is made in America.<br />
49196A. There is wheaten starch coming in ?-I doubt it.<br />
49197. By JYir. Gt·imwode.-Wlmt is Colman's starch ?_:_Rice.<br />
49198. There is a starch called wheaten starch, is there not ?-[.No anstver.j<br />
49199. By J.lh. Bosisto.-How do you judge between wl:leat starch and rice starch?-You find it<br />
ou by using it.<br />
49200. using it is the chief thing, is it not ?-Ye~. . ..<br />
49201. Then you do not recommend any alteration <strong>of</strong> duty as between one starch and another?<br />
No, I cannot recommend any alteration in the duty any way, either to raise or lower it. Of course, if yon<br />
raise it higher it would stop import more; but we do not wish to see it higher or lower at present ..<br />
49202. You do not wish for a diiierential duty between one starch ~tnd another'?-No; I do not<br />
see that it would be any advantage in any way ; all I can say is that these duties have given a great<br />
impetus to all the manufactures that we produce and other8 also, and given it a tendency to make this<br />
the chief manufacturing city <strong>of</strong> Australia.<br />
49203. By the lion. ·.iJ.fr. Lorimer.-Whose starch that is imported competes most 'with yours?-<br />
Colman's and Reckitt's, the two principal makers in Euglam~. ..<br />
49204. Can you tell us the average cost <strong>of</strong> these starches in England ?-I could not say exact'ly; I<br />
should think somewhere about £30 per ton. ·<br />
49205. How much per pound is that ?-Threepence. .<br />
49206. Then what percentage is 2d. 'llpon that ad vcol01·ern ?-It would vary, I should think, from<br />
3d. to 3~cl.<br />
49207. What is tlmt ctcl 1:alorem at 2d. a pound-is it not over 60 per cent. ?-It is high.<br />
49208. Do you tell us seriously it is necessary to protect your industry, to have 66 per cent-could<br />
not you do with a lower protective duty than that ?-At present I do not see that it could very well do<br />
with a lower duty.<br />
49209. You havetold us you were doing blacking with a duty <strong>of</strong> 20 per cent.?-Yes.<br />
49210. How is it you can do that ?-Most <strong>of</strong> the material for blacking is prodnced in the colony,<br />
but the raw material for starch has to be brought from India, China, Japan, and many other places,<br />
making the cost much greater.<br />
49211. Cannot you rice as cheap from India and Japan to Australia as you can to London?-<br />
No, I think it would be clearer here, freight is so much clearer to any <strong>of</strong> our ports than it is to England;<br />
and another difference is that in blacking every ounce or pound <strong>of</strong> the mw material we buy is used up, and<br />
in making starch yon only get a small percentage <strong>of</strong> the material.<br />
49212. Then you do not think you could do with a lower protective duty than 60 per cent. upon<br />
starch ?-We should not wish to see it a,ltered at present.<br />
49213. Have you made a calculation to see whethee you conld not do with a lower duty ?-There is<br />
one thing, I see no benefit to accrue to anyone from it. If starch was so much higher when we commenced<br />
manufacturing, >1nd is so much lower now to the public, the public woulll not benefit by the<br />
reduction.<br />
40214. What other article do you produce beside starch and blacking?-\Ve have a long list <strong>of</strong><br />
articles. We have blue, and ·washing powder, and baking powder, and all that description <strong>of</strong> goods.<br />
49215. What duty have you upon them ?-Twenty pet· cent.<br />
49216. Then starch is the only one that hns more than 20 per cent.?-13lue and starch; blue is 2d.<br />
a lb.<br />
49217. Do you manufacture pickles ?-No, we do not manufactme pickles. I may say that we pay<br />
from 100 to 200 per cent. for wages more than they do in England. .<br />
49218. Do you know the cost <strong>of</strong> blue in England ?-It is one <strong>of</strong> those articles that varies very much<br />
from a low price up to a very high price.<br />
49219. Wht1t is the ordinary average <strong>of</strong> the imported ?-I could not say the maker's price at home.<br />
49220. I see the revenue has gone down very much npon it, so yon have succeeded in shutting it<br />
out at2cl., it has gone down in three years from £1,000. In 1876 it was £1,982, and hest year it was only<br />
.£800. Can you tell us the average price <strong>of</strong> the imported article ?-I could not; I do not know the maker's<br />
price at home.<br />
4[)221. What is your price ?-Onr price here is as low as 7~d.<br />
':!9222. Then I suppose the English price might be whe,t-Gd. or 7d. ?-It is quite possible it might<br />
be, but the price <strong>of</strong> English here was from lOcl. to 1s. previonroly.<br />
49223. I suppose the 2d. is 40 to 50 per cent. upon the English price, is it not?--Yes, I suppose<br />
it is.<br />
49224. By Jlfr. Gri?mixtde.-Do you make starch from rice in bond?-Yes, we make it in bond.<br />
49225. Do you get all the facilities you want ?-The Government have granted us all facilities.<br />
49226. Have yon tried making starch from wheat ?-No.<br />
49227. I suppose it requires a different plant ?-I suppose it requires a different plant.<br />
49228. Is the yield from wheat as good ?-I suppose it is about the same, perhaps.<br />
49220. B.1J the Chainnan.-You say that the price <strong>of</strong> starch at home is £20 per ton ?-About £30<br />
I think, somewhere about £30, somewhere about 3~d., as nom as I can ji.1dge.<br />
49230. The price <strong>of</strong> it in England?-Yes.<br />
4[)231. How much dces it cost to bnd here ?-I have not gone into that.<br />
49232. Without the duty ?-I think the charges come to one-third generally upon those things for<br />
importing, one• third <strong>of</strong> the cost ..<br />
49233. That would he a Id. a pouucl ?-I suppose it would, freight and charges, and all that.<br />
40234. The price listed here was 4~cl. ?-I should think about 4d., or between 4d. and 1td·<br />
49235. Has there been any rise in the price <strong>of</strong> starch at home lately ?-No. It has come clown. I<br />
am not
1457<br />
49236. Has there been any fall in the cost <strong>of</strong> starch at home ?-I do not think so; I do not think it :JohnB: Whitty,<br />
continued,<br />
has)lnctuatecl at all lately. SrdMay 1883,<br />
4923'7. You stflte here that the price up to the last eighteen months when you commenced was 6~d.<br />
in Melbourne?-Yes, ::mcl I think even over that. .<br />
49238. Is that the wholesale price or the retail ?-That is the wholesale price.<br />
49239. And your wholesale price is 5cl.?-Yes.<br />
49240. What would that be sold for retail ?-I suppose G~cl., in some shops even Gel.<br />
49241. Your own manufacture ?-Onr own manufacture is sold for Gel. in the shol)S.<br />
49242. What would the imported art.icle be sold for that used to be 6td.?-It was sold for 8d. and<br />
as high as 9cl.<br />
49243. So that in reality the consumer here when he depended upon the importer paid 9cl. a pouncl<br />
for an article that was bought for about 3~c1. in Euglaml ?-Yes, that would be the 1)rice then ; I do not<br />
suppose starch would be any clearer ten years ago in England than it is now.<br />
49244. BylVIr. Bosisto.-In my day I never knew it sold under 4~d. in large quantities ?-As near<br />
as I can judge now starch is sold at £30 a ton ; some may be higher.<br />
49245. By Mr. Mclnty1·e.-In England ?-Yes.<br />
49246. By the Clu:tir·man.-How long has the duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. been on ?-Since 1871.<br />
49247. And till you started eighteen months ago starch was not made here ?-Yes, formerly it was<br />
made by the Kensington Company.<br />
49248. And they have given up ?-I am not sure, but I have reason to think they are not manufacturing<br />
at present.<br />
49249. I want to understand about this price if I can. If the importers can afford to .sell it now at<br />
5d.--?-They do not sell at 5cl., they sell at 5icl.<br />
49250. By },fr. Bosisto.-Do not you think one is whenten starch and the other rice ?-No, both are<br />
rice starch, Colman's and Reckett's starch is rice starch. All the starch imported here is rice starch.<br />
4925L By the Chairman.-Is there any difference in the valne o£ rice and wheat starches r-<br />
1 dare say at home there would be a little difference in the vo.lue.<br />
49252. In favour <strong>of</strong> which ?-Rice.<br />
49253. Wheaten would be clearer ?-No, I think wheaten would be a little less; but I may say that<br />
the same reduction has taken place upon all our goods. Before we commenced blacking was sold at 6s. and<br />
7 s. a gross and now it is sold at 4s.<br />
49254. By ]J1r•.<br />
flfelntyre.-What do you charge for a ton <strong>of</strong> your starch at present ?-About £40<br />
-5d. a lb.~that would be about £45 or £46.<br />
49255. And that would be selling in England ?-The same article would be selli:ng in Englaud at<br />
about £30. But you must bear in mind that to the wholesale house a discount comes <strong>of</strong>f our price, which<br />
reduces it considerably.<br />
4925G. Is there any discount <strong>of</strong>f the home price ?-Yes, a small one.<br />
49257. Just in proportion, I suppose ?-No, not in proportion.<br />
40258. What is the difference ?-As much as 10 per cent.<br />
49259. By the Hon. Jrir. Lm·imer.-Yon have not to pay clniy upon the rice ?-No, we are allowetl<br />
to manufacture in bond, we could not manufacture if we had to pay £6 a ton duty upon the rice, it would be<br />
utterly impossible.<br />
492GO. Do the English manufactnrers pay duty ?-No.<br />
49261. In that respect you are alike ?-In that respect we are alike. I may say that though our price<br />
is £4G it comes 'clown very considerably in the discount. Our discount to the wholesale houses is very<br />
liberal. We ha'l'e acloptetl the system <strong>of</strong> having only the one price, so that the larger shops can buy from<br />
us, but the discount to wholesale houses is much larger.<br />
4D262. By the Chairman.-And there is no difference between the wholesale houses at home now<br />
when they have to compete with you more than there was before you sto.rted ?-No, I de~ not thiuk so, there<br />
has been very little difference in the cost price at home and what it is at the present time, I :should not<br />
think so.<br />
49263. Is there anything further you wish to add ?-No, there is nothing else I wish to say. ·will<br />
you allow me to add that though we have the privilege, which is a greut advn,ntage to us, to manufacture in<br />
bond, we still have to pay £250 a year for a locker, which is a very large item.<br />
T!te witness withdrew.<br />
Arthnr Tilley sworn and exam.ine(l.<br />
492G3A. By the Clwirman.-You are <strong>of</strong> Tilley aml Clttck ?-Of Tilley and Clack, Surrey-road,<br />
South Yarra.<br />
492G4. What are you ?-Toilet r;oap manufacturers and manufacturers <strong>of</strong> other articles <strong>of</strong><br />
perfumery.<br />
49265. How many hunds are you employing ?-Oius is only a S1mll place ; we have six at the<br />
present time, but I m.ay say that I do not wish to he examined upon our own industry. The examination<br />
upon candles and soap took place yesterdo.y ; but it is only upon the a.t·ticle that we use in our manufactures<br />
in the putting up <strong>of</strong> violet powder.<br />
4!1266. What is it you wish to mention ?-The b:J.se <strong>of</strong> that is pnlYerised starch. Starch, as you<br />
luwe heard from Mr. Whitty, is taxed to the extent <strong>of</strong> 2d. per pound. That comes to us as our raw material,<br />
which at £28 a ton, that I paid for it years ago, comes to exactly 66;t per cent.<br />
49267. Twenty-eight pounds you paid for sturch years ago ?-F~r pulverised starch sufficient for our<br />
purposes. That was before the imposition <strong>of</strong> the duty. Since that <strong>of</strong> course we have had to pay a great<br />
deal more. I want to point out that the duty upon violet 11owder is only 10 per cent.; and I wish you to<br />
take notice that I would like to have an alteration, as a matter <strong>of</strong> right, in the tariff-a. higher rate <strong>of</strong> duty<br />
p[acecl npon violet powder, so that one should equalize the other. Violet powder is taxed to the extent <strong>of</strong><br />
10 per cent., uuu the raw material is taxed to the extent <strong>of</strong> 66 per cent.<br />
49268. How comes i1; that it is only lO per cent. ?-I am sme I do not know.<br />
TARIFF.<br />
8 y<br />
Artbnr Tillcy,<br />
3rd llfuy 1883.
Arthur Tilley,<br />
continued,<br />
ilrd lll:ay 1883.<br />
1458<br />
49269. You want the duty upon violet powder increased to 20 per cent. ?-I do not think 20 per<br />
cent. would be sufficient; upon onr raw material we have to pay duty to the extent <strong>of</strong> 66 per cent., and<br />
violet powder is 10 per cent. now.<br />
49270. What do you pay for starch now ?-For pulverised starch at the rate <strong>of</strong> 5cl.<br />
49271. That is £46 a ton. How long have you been paying that price ?-For a length <strong>of</strong> time,<br />
now.<br />
49272. For how long ?-We did, until Messrs. Lewis and Whitty commenced business, pay more for<br />
it than we do at the present time.<br />
49273. Tell us how much ?-I paid as much as 6td. a pound for it.<br />
49274. Buying it wholesale ?-Buying it wholesale.<br />
49275. Would it not pay you to import it, seeing it is sold in London for about £30? -It would cost<br />
us at least £28 per ton in London, the duty upon it is 2cl. direct ; there is the outlay <strong>of</strong> the money besides<br />
other expenses connected with it. It would pay us far better to buy here undoubtedly, under the present<br />
state <strong>of</strong> affai1·s.<br />
4927G. Cannot you get the same concession to manufacture in bond that :Mr. Whitty has ?-Unfortunately<br />
there is only a small consumption for this article. It is used merely for the toilet. We employ at<br />
present upon it, a couple <strong>of</strong> h•cls, perhaps ; if we were protected to a greater extent, or got our raw<br />
material duty free, we might employ three or four more; it is a very minor affair, only I look upon it as a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> right that I ought to be placed in a better position.<br />
49277. You admit that you are in a better position since Mr. Whitty commenced ?-Yes.<br />
The witness ~oithdrew.<br />
Josbua Proud,<br />
Srd ~ray 1883.<br />
Joshua Proud sworn and examined.<br />
49278. By the Clwinnctn.-Are you a manufacturer <strong>of</strong> blacking?-Yes, <strong>of</strong> charcoal blat:lking and<br />
coal dust.<br />
49279. What do you wish to say in relation to the tariff ?-We are satisfied with it-that is all I<br />
can say. There is only one thing, I believe-that in a good many instances the duty is not paid because<br />
in the list it is put down as ground coal and charcoal, whereas it shoulcl be founders' blacking and coal dust.<br />
They bring it in in a different name, I believe, and never pay any duty at all.<br />
49280. There is a duty <strong>of</strong> 20 per cent., if it comes under that name-it is just the same duty upon<br />
the one as the other, so altering the name does not evncle the duty ?-But if they bring it in in any other<br />
name it comes in duty free. About eight years ago, when Mr. Cohen was Commissioner <strong>of</strong> Customs, a lot<br />
<strong>of</strong> it was brought in here under the headings <strong>of</strong> coal products. I went and watched the vessel for a week,<br />
ancl got two samples <strong>of</strong> it, and went to the Custom-house, and the <strong>of</strong>ficer there told me it was brought in as<br />
free goods; and when I told him what it was he said I was to write to Mr. Cohen. I did so, and I kept a<br />
copy <strong>of</strong> the letter, and three weeks afterwards I got a letter to say that the duty <strong>of</strong> 20 per cent. was paid<br />
upon it, and that we had been misinformed; and the importers laughed at us, an ell found out afterwards that<br />
they got infonnation from the Customs <strong>of</strong>ficers, and went and paid the duty. I would like to see it altered.<br />
The ~oitness withdrew.<br />
Emil Gutheil sworn and examined.<br />
Emil Gutlleil, 49281. Ry the C!tairman.-What are you ?-Vinegar manufacturer.<br />
ara l!by 1885 • 49282. Where are your works situated ?-In Prahran.<br />
49283. How many hands are you employing ?-From eight to ten.<br />
4U284. Iu what way does the tariff affect your industry?-We are satisfied with the way it is at<br />
present ; we do not wish it altered.<br />
49285. By Mr. J}fcintyre.-Could not you continue your business if it were altered in any way ?-<br />
No, I do uot think so.<br />
492RG. What induced you to start your business ?-The Gd. duty on vinegar.<br />
49287. When did vou start ?-Twelve vears azo.<br />
49288. And since "that time have you n~t established yom business so well that you can do without<br />
duty ?-The duty was on before ever vinegar-making was established here. It is 3d. in England and 9cl.<br />
in different colonies.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
EliasCnnlHf,<br />
3rd Diay 1883.<br />
Elias Cunliff sworn and examined.<br />
49289. By the Clwi1·nwn.-What are you ?-Jam manufacturer.<br />
49290. Where is your factory situated ?-Swanston-street, Melboume.<br />
492!11. Hovv long have you been in the business ?-About ten years.<br />
4D292. How many hands are you employing ?-We have about 60 hands now.<br />
49293. How many had you when you commencecl upon a small scale ?-Just myself and my wife.<br />
49294. How has the tariff affected your industry ?-I think it encourages the industry, as far as I<br />
can see. I clo not wish to alter it.<br />
49295. Is there any alteration in the tariff that you wish to propose ?-I think not.<br />
49296. Do you give employment to other people outside the factory in 8A.ldition to the 60 hands ?<br />
-Yes, a good deal.<br />
49297. In the manufacture <strong>of</strong>tins ?-We make the tins 11pon the premises.<br />
49298. Do you make the cases upon the premises ?-No, we get them made at Halstead and Kerr's,<br />
the timber merchants. ·<br />
49209. Your labels-are those printed in the colony?-We have them all printed in the colony.<br />
4!1300. Have you any plant used in the trade-any machinery ?-Yes, we have machinery such as<br />
pans and the engine.<br />
49301. Is that made in the colony ?-Yes, it was made in the colony, and we have other plant that<br />
we are expecting out from home. i,Y e could not get it made here-an improved plant. Of course we shall<br />
have to pay, I suppo~e, the usual duty upon it, but we do not object to that.
1459<br />
49302. Have you tried Queensland sugar at all in your factory?-Yes, we tried it, but we prefer<br />
the Mauril.ius.<br />
49303. Supposing the Queensland sug:u were admitted duty free ?-That would make a little<br />
difference <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
4930±. ·w onld you be able then to do with less duty upon your jam?-I could not say, I ttm sure; we<br />
do not like to remove the duties.<br />
49305. \Ve are bound, <strong>of</strong> course, to look all round the question. Has not the duty upon imported<br />
jam so thoroughly established the local manufacturer that the imported jam is almost beaten out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
rnQrket now ?-Yes, I believe it is.<br />
49306. It is (t rare thing, for instance, to see Wotherspoon's jmn in a grocer's windows, is it not?<br />
I remember ten or twelve years ago you usecl to see any amount <strong>of</strong> imported jam, now I never see it.<br />
49307. If you could supply your jam even at a lower price than you do now, in consequence say, <strong>of</strong><br />
the removal <strong>of</strong> the duty from Queenshmd sugar, and the using <strong>of</strong> that sugar instead <strong>of</strong> the Mauritius, would<br />
not you still be able to keep out the imported jam, even if the duty were 1d. instead <strong>of</strong> 2d.?-Yes, no t1oubt<br />
we could.<br />
49308. You are not afraid <strong>of</strong> the competition with Tasmanian jam, are you ?-No, the gardeners<br />
here are increasing their gardens so much, that the fruit is beginning to be almost as plentiful in this colony<br />
as Tasmania.<br />
49309. Has not fruit this season, in fact, been far more plentiful ?-Yes, every year it increases.<br />
49310. It has been rotting under the trees in almost every direction, and they have been feeding pigs<br />
with it, to my own knowledge ?-No.<br />
49311. Now, with a cheaper and more plentiful supply <strong>of</strong> frnit and with Queensland sugar duty<br />
free ?-If we could get sugar duty free it would make a great difference, it is .£3 a ton.<br />
49312. You could do with a duty <strong>of</strong> Id. a pound instead <strong>of</strong> 2d.?-The sugar duty is not equal to a<br />
duty <strong>of</strong> 1d. a pound upon jam.<br />
49313. No, <strong>of</strong> course not. Has there been any increase in the price <strong>of</strong> colonial jam since you<br />
started ?-No, quite the other way. It has decreased.<br />
49314. When you commenced ten yem·s ago, for instance, what were yon able to get for your jam?<br />
-About 7s. 6d. a dozen, 7s. and Is. 6d.<br />
49315. A dozen one pound tins ?-Yes.<br />
49316. Then it had to come into competition with Wotherspoon's ?-Yes, and English jams.<br />
49317. Which were sold ~tt what ?-About 8s. 6d.<br />
49318. Now you are able to supply it at what ?-We are able to supply the best jams now at<br />
5s. 3d.<br />
49319. The local competition <strong>of</strong> one jam maker with the other has brought down the price ?-That<br />
is what has done it.<br />
49320. By Mr. Mcintyre.-Do I understand that that is about 5;f;d. a pound that you are charging<br />
for jillll ?-Yes.<br />
49321. And do you really require 2d. a pound duty upon an m'ticle ntlued at only 5.!cl. ?-Yes, but<br />
there are the expenses <strong>of</strong> getting it up, the tins and everything.<br />
49322. But in the face <strong>of</strong> the fact that the fruit is now so plentiful and so cheap compared with<br />
what it was when you started, and sugar also, do you mean to say that you could not do with Id. a pound<br />
upon an article that could be made for 5d. ?-I have no doubt we could hold our own at Id. a pound, I am<br />
not afraid <strong>of</strong> tnat, if Qtleenslancl sugar is admitted L1uty free.<br />
'19323. By the Chainnan.-Have you anything further to say yourself?-No, I do not know <strong>of</strong><br />
1mything.<br />
'l'he witness withdr·ew.<br />
Edward White sworn and examined.<br />
EHa.s Ct:mliff,<br />
contt'nued,<br />
3rd May 1883.<br />
49324. By the Cl!airmcm.-\Vhat are you ?-Sauce and cordial maker. Edward White,<br />
49325. Where is your factory situated ?-Church-street, Richmond. ilrd May 1883.<br />
4932G. How long has it been established ?-Six or seven years as a sauce maker.<br />
49327. How many hands are you employing ?.,-From eight to twelve.<br />
49328. Say ten--what is the principal article you manufacture?-VVe are bottlers as well as sauce<br />
and cordial makers.<br />
49329. What is the principal article you manufacture ?-Beer.<br />
49330. You want to evidence upon the question <strong>of</strong> sauce ?-Sauce only.<br />
49331. Are there any particular kinds <strong>of</strong> sauces that you devote yourselves to, or do you make them<br />
all ?-We make all kinds <strong>of</strong> sauces.<br />
49332. In what way does the tariff affect that industry ?-Since the tariff was altered upon sauces<br />
the market has been :flooded with English sauces, to the great detriment <strong>of</strong> the colonial maker.<br />
49333. When was the tariff altered ?-I do not know the preci~e elate, but it was altered from 1s.<br />
a dozen fm· reputed half-pints, to a 10 per cent. ad valorem.<br />
49 334. "Oilmen's stores (except essential oils and essences not containing alcohol) packed in bottles,<br />
jm·s, canisters, or vessels not exceeding one requted quart in size, 20 per cent." That is the duty. If they<br />
do exceed those quarts and sizes what is it then, Mr. Dryscble ?-(.Jir. Drysdale) 10 per cent., like<br />
chutney in casks.<br />
49335. Then they simply put it into bottles containing a little more than a quart and get it in at 10<br />
per cent. duty, is that it ?-[The PVitness J-Yes, but I am referring more particularly to half-pint bottles.<br />
49336. Then they pay 20 per cent. ?-Then I was under a misimpression. But what we want is a<br />
:fixed duty <strong>of</strong> ls. a dozen upon reputed half-pints, and 2s. a dozen upon repnted pints.<br />
49337. By JJ1r. Mcintgre.-No matte1~ what the value <strong>of</strong> the article ?-Yes, decidedly, because these<br />
sauces that are brought here are pretty much <strong>of</strong> a value; there is only one particular niake thQtis a hi"h<br />
0<br />
price, and that is Lea and Perrin's.<br />
49338. By the Chqirmq,n,-Yo11 represent to the Cprpmission tha.t 20 per c~mt. is not sufficient?~<br />
Yes,
Edwar~White,<br />
1460<br />
49339. You want a fixed duty <strong>of</strong> ls. tl, dozen upon the pints and 6cl. upon the half-pints?-That<br />
sr~~;'~sa.: would be about 20 per cent. A shilling upon reputed half-pints and 2s. for reputed pints, and quarts in<br />
proportion ; thnt is what we want.<br />
493,10. Whe~t is the wholesale price <strong>of</strong> the reputeclhttll'-pints ?-Colonial?<br />
49341. No, imported ?-I could harclly tell you Lea and Perrin'.s.<br />
49342. Leaving those out, as exceptionally high in price, you say ?-About 4s.; 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d.<br />
49343. Then if you say la. upon that that is 25 per cent. only, and you get 20 per cent. now?-<br />
At the present time several :English sauces are being sold as low as that; but you ask the average English<br />
price, I say 3s. 6d., ancl there are others very much lower even than that.<br />
49344. Still you get 20 per cent. upon the lower priced article, that is more in proportion than upon<br />
the higher priced one ?-Twenty per cent. is not equal to ls. a dozen,<br />
49345. No, but it is upon the lower price, so that the duty is just ns much in proportion as it is in<br />
the other case. What is the price <strong>of</strong> the colonial?-The same, 4s. ; 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6cl.<br />
49346. Have you anything else to say ?-No, that is all.<br />
The toitness witltdrew.<br />
Adjourned to Tuesda.IJ next, at Ttvo o'clock.<br />
Dav!d Gibson,<br />
Sth May 1883.<br />
TUESDAY, 8TH :MAY, 1883.<br />
Present:<br />
JA:!I:LES MrRAMs;Esq., M.L.A., in the Chair;<br />
J. Bo,;;isto Esq., ML.A., The Hon. G. JVIeares, M.L.C.,<br />
W. J. Lobb, Esq., W. F. Walker, Esq., M.L.A.,<br />
The Hon. ,J. Lorimer, M.L.C.,<br />
E. L. Zox, Esq., M.L.A.<br />
J. Mcintyre, Esq., M.L.A.,<br />
GRAIN, FLOUR, RICE, ETC.<br />
David Gibson sworn aud examined.<br />
49347. By tlte Chairman.-What are you ?-I am a miller in Carlton.<br />
49348. Has it been long established ?-That is the oldest established mill in the colony. It was<br />
originally established by Mr. John Dight.<br />
49349. I have a letter from Mr. Gibson, dated 27th <strong>of</strong> the 5th month 1!:'82, asking an opportunity<br />
<strong>of</strong> giving evidence before the Commission on the question <strong>of</strong> the duty upon milling machinery ?<br />
Yes.<br />
49350. ls the Commiss10n to understand that that is the only item you wish to bring under their<br />
notice ?-No; I wish to bring under their notice other items, and also the tariff upon grain generallywe<br />
want it swept all away. I want to be heard upon that point. '<br />
49351. As to the material you manipulate-that is the grain-what is your opinion in relation to<br />
the tariff upon that ?~There is a duty now <strong>of</strong> 2s. a bushel upon wheat, and the fanners themselves complain<br />
that they cannot get any seed wheat to have ~• variation <strong>of</strong> seed. It does not affect us personally<br />
to pay 2s. a bi1shel, because the price in London rules the price in the colony at present.<br />
49352. It is 2s. a cental, is it not?~ Yes. I beg your pardon, we always calculate by the bushel.<br />
The duty does not affect the colony in any way, as the London market now rules our market<br />
here.<br />
49353. For wheat ?-For wheat. I am speaking simply <strong>of</strong> wheat now and flour, and we are<br />
charged now 27i per cent. upon all our imported patent machinery that cannot be produced in the<br />
colonv.<br />
• 49354. Now you are going from the material to the machinery ?-Yes, l am finished with<br />
material.<br />
49355. Let us keep to the one article first-yott propose the abolition <strong>of</strong> the 2s. cental upon<br />
wheat?-Yes.<br />
49356. You do that upon tho grouml that our produce has outstepped our demands and that we<br />
are an exporting country in regard to wheat?-Y os.<br />
49357. The price being ruled by the London market and not here ?-By the European markets.<br />
49358. I also understand it upon the ground <strong>of</strong> the admission <strong>of</strong> varieties <strong>of</strong> seed wheat, without<br />
paying duty?-If the duty were swept away we shorud have t.he opportunity <strong>of</strong> getting varieties <strong>of</strong> seed<br />
wheat in which we cannot get now.<br />
49359. Do the growers <strong>of</strong> wheat coincide with ymt in that opinion ?-The growers <strong>of</strong> whent coincide<br />
with me in that opi11ion as fm· as I have spoken to them, because it produces a better quality and they get<br />
more <strong>of</strong> it by a change <strong>of</strong> seed. ·<br />
49360. Those are the two grounds upon which you advocate the remission <strong>of</strong> thE;J duty upon wheat?<br />
-Yes.<br />
49361. Have you anything to say about the duty upon other cereals ?-I have nothing particular to<br />
say about them; I considel' them a great hardship.<br />
49362. Do you deal in them?-Yes, in oats an cl barley principally; I have made no pearl barley in<br />
bond, only oatmeal.<br />
49363. You can clo that in bond ?-I can do that in bond.<br />
49364. So it does not affect you in that respect ?-So it does not affect me in that respect, but I<br />
should like to see the whole duty swept <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
49365. Now about the improvements and machinery, what have you to say ?-I will show yott a<br />
sample <strong>of</strong> flour. I luove erected a large plant and I have brought a sample <strong>of</strong> flour. This :flour is worth 4s.<br />
a bag more than flour made in ordinary stones, consequently you see the enhanceil cost <strong>of</strong> it by the duty.<br />
49366. Thost: are all the same snmples ?-No, they are different samples. One is made by the<br />
patent machinery, an cl the other is made by the stones--[ the witness produced and !tanded in the samples].
1461<br />
49367. I understand that you show these samples <strong>of</strong> flour in ordel' to prove the difference in the<br />
value and the fineness <strong>of</strong> the flour manufactured by the patent machinery <strong>of</strong> which you speak ?-Yes.<br />
49368. And flom made by the ordinary millstones ?-Yes.<br />
49369. I have numbered the samples No. 1, No. '2, and No. 3. Ne. 1, you say, is the result <strong>of</strong> the<br />
patent machinery, awl Nos. 2 and 3 are the samples from the ortlinary machinery?-Yes.<br />
49370. What is the difference in the value <strong>of</strong> these different flours ?-The difference in the value <strong>of</strong><br />
the patent flour from America is 4s. a bag in London. From Italy and Buda-Pesth, where they originally<br />
introduced the roller mills, there is a difference <strong>of</strong> 9s. a sack. Before they star~ed this patent machinery<br />
their flour commanded in London the ordinary price.<br />
4D371. You have this machinery in use now ?-Yes.<br />
49372. Have you experienced the value <strong>of</strong> the enhanced value ?-Yes.<br />
49373, And you object, I understand, to the duty which you had to pay upon this machine?-Yes,<br />
2H per cent.<br />
49374. What was the cost <strong>of</strong> the machinery you imported ?-It costs altogether upwarLls <strong>of</strong> £4,000<br />
before it started.<br />
49375. About £4,000 ?-Upwards <strong>of</strong> £A,OOO.<br />
4937G. You tell us this is a patent ?-It is not a patent in the colony, it is a patent in Hungary.<br />
49377. The patent (loes not extend to this country ?-The patent does not extend t.o this country.<br />
49378. Then if we introduce a regulation by which all patent machinery should be admitted free, it<br />
would not touch this case ?-It is patent where it is exported from, but it is not a patent here.<br />
4\}379. Then under a regulation by which all patent machinery, for whatever purpose it is made<br />
and whatever trade used, it should be admitted free, this would come in free ?-I expect iL would.<br />
49380. Have you anything further to add ?-I have this to add, tlmt we have to compete with the<br />
neighbouring colonies. Everything we handle in our mill is taxed. Onr belts are taxed, which eomes to a<br />
large qmmtity <strong>of</strong> money. Our cornsacks are heavily taxed, all our macl1inery, in fact everythiug we touch<br />
is taxed. Across the Border, in New South \Vales, or South Australia, everything comes in free, bags are<br />
half the mouev.<br />
4938l:Not in New South Wales, are the same there?-Yes, but they are half in South<br />
Australia, and machinery comes in free.<br />
49382. Not rnachinery in South Australia ?-It is<br />
Now we have all this to contend with, which is very unjust<br />
markets with them.<br />
small if anything, but in Sydney it is free.<br />
contend, because we have to compete in the<br />
49383. Which markets ?-Sydney ami Queensland ; we send flour to all those markets.<br />
49384. Are you able to compete with them there successfully to any exten~ ?-We have to compete<br />
with them ; but om· protits, as manufacturers, must be reduced to that extent.<br />
49385. Can you give the Commission any statement <strong>of</strong> the portion <strong>of</strong> your outlay upon t,_hese articles<br />
that you have enumerated, and which pay duty-what proportion does it bear to the value <strong>of</strong> your yearly<br />
out~put ?-I have not gone into the thing so minutely as that.<br />
49386. You see, that in order for us to come to an opinion as to how far these taxes are a burden<br />
upon you, and reduce your pr<strong>of</strong>its, it is neeessary for us to know what is the value <strong>of</strong> your year's business,<br />
and what is the value <strong>of</strong> the outlay upon these articles-for instance, what does oil co;;t ?-Oil costs about a<br />
couple <strong>of</strong> pounds a week.<br />
49387. And the duty is 20 per cent. upon it, is it not ?-About 20 per cent.<br />
Mr. Drysdale.-Twelve and a half per cent.<br />
The fFttness.-Theu there is our bagging. We use about a thousand ba.gs a week. We pay Is. net,<br />
and the Adelaide people pay 6d.<br />
49388. You would hn.ve to pay Is. in New South Wales, the same as here ?-Yes ; but the Adelaide<br />
people have that advantage. If I use a thousand bags <strong>of</strong> wheat they have the aclvant!tge <strong>of</strong> paying only<br />
half what I pay.<br />
49389. You do an export trade ?-Yes.<br />
49390. Do you find any difficulty in dealing with the Customs under the drawback regulations?<br />
We get no drawback.<br />
49391. You manipulate in bond, <strong>of</strong> course ?-Yes ; the oatmeal is sent away in bond, and flour is<br />
upon the free list.<br />
- 49392. So you have no trouble in that ?-We have no trouble in that whatever.<br />
49393. The tariff then cloes not interfere with yom· export trade, more than to rednce certain<br />
amounts <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it to you in the direction you spoke <strong>of</strong>?-Yes.<br />
49394. By .11fT. Bosisto.-In reference to a statement made here the other clay, about pollard or<br />
sharps, does the patent process make pollard or slmrps <strong>of</strong> a quality that would make ordinary ship's<br />
biscuits ?-I may tell you that the millers <strong>of</strong> Melbourne are ahead <strong>of</strong> the millers in the neighbouring<br />
colonies. 1 suppose they are more energetic men. Five years >tgo I was in London, aml I importecl a<br />
purifier, as they call it. When we m!l.ke pollarcl we put it into the purifier, and it takes away all the light<br />
fluffy kernel f1·om it, and leaves nothing but the pure wheat, aml it makes flour equal to the first wheat,<br />
that is the reason there is none to sell in the colony. Vife have now nearly all got purifiers, and we convert<br />
it into flom.<br />
49395. So in point <strong>of</strong> fact that kind <strong>of</strong> pollard will not do for biscuit bakers?-We find it more<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>itable to make it into flour than to sell it to the biscuit bakers. Our improved machinery has done<br />
away with that kind <strong>of</strong> pollard or nearly so.<br />
49396. By the Hon. J.Wr. Lorimer.-Theu if the duty were abolished upon pollard it woulLl not<br />
injnre the millers ?-Not a bit.<br />
49397. You have no objection ?-The millers are not frightened <strong>of</strong> anything <strong>of</strong> that kind.<br />
49398. As to the competition in which you are at a disadva.ntage in foreign mm·kets, I think in<br />
answer to the Chairman you simply talked about Sydney ?-I say Sycln13y and Queensland.<br />
49399. You export flour to London also, do not you ?-Yes.<br />
49400. It will be the largest market I suppose in the future ?-Yes, I suppose it will.<br />
49401. So that this h:J.ndicapping by a duty puts you at a clisadv:J.ntage in competing with South<br />
Australia at I"onclon ?-Yes, ~mcl it also keeps the patent mnchines out· <strong>of</strong> the colony ; you can put your<br />
Da.vhl Oibson 1<br />
conliJlued,<br />
Stll May 1883,
1462<br />
David Gibson,<br />
contt'nued,<br />
8th May 1883,<br />
hand upon them. No mill furnisher will lay out £25,000 upon those things and put them into his yard.<br />
If you want them you must go to Europe for them instead <strong>of</strong> going next door.<br />
49402. Then you want the removal <strong>of</strong> these duties to enable you to compete with other colonies<br />
in foreign markets ?-Yes, to enable us to compete with other colonies in foreign markets; also that the<br />
millers <strong>of</strong> the colony may use them and enhance the value <strong>of</strong> the article. If we can enhance the value <strong>of</strong><br />
flour 4s. a sack, why not let us do it; if we enhance it, the farmers and all the producers in the colony<br />
are interested in it, for they would get the larger price for their produce.<br />
49403. Is the <strong>Victoria</strong>n wheat in all respects as good for flour as the South .Australian wheat ?<br />
I think not. I think the South .Australian wheat has more gluten and saccharine matter than the wheat<br />
grown upon the plains here, but our wheat is magnificent.·<br />
49404. Then they have some advantage over you in the quality <strong>of</strong> the wheat ?-They have some<br />
advantage over us.<br />
49/1,05. Do you ever import South .Australian wheat to mix P-We cannot import it now.<br />
49406. If the duty were <strong>of</strong>f would you do it? -I think not, for, as a rule, we are 2d. a bushel under<br />
them.<br />
·19407. By Jlh. JYJaintyre.-Is the flour marked No. 1 here a superior article to Nos. 2 and 3 ?-<br />
Yes.<br />
49"108. For general consumption ?-Yes, for anything.<br />
49409. By having this class <strong>of</strong> machinery you give to the consumers and eaters <strong>of</strong> bread in the<br />
colony a better article ?-We should give the consumers a better article. It is freed from foreign matter,<br />
dirt, or ground up bran.<br />
49410. It is a finer flour in every respect ?-Yes.<br />
49411. Is there a kind <strong>of</strong> grit in No. 3, particularly as compared with No. 1; is there anything<br />
particular ?-It is rougher ground.<br />
49412. What is the particular point in the new machinery. Is that sample made from the same<br />
wheat?-Yes, it is made from the same wheat. .A wheat berry is a very fine thing, it is all full <strong>of</strong> fine<br />
~ells, and it is bound up, as it were, in a net. When you have split the wheat berry and take a powerful<br />
Inicroscope, you see all the cells. The new machinery does not break up the iine glutinous matter, it just<br />
chips it asunder. In the other old process <strong>of</strong> grinding you broke up the cells which discoloured the :flour,<br />
and deteriorated it as :flour to a great extent more than anyone can understand, who does not look into it.<br />
49413. You have this class <strong>of</strong> machinery at present in use?-Yes.<br />
49414. Would you require more than you have now ?-I would be the better <strong>of</strong> some more.<br />
49415. For the n1tnre you are speaking ?-I should like to try back for the past if I could, and for<br />
the future also, though I do not speak personally for myself alone, I speak for the colony and what would<br />
benefit it.<br />
49416. Could not this elass <strong>of</strong> machinery be made in the colony ?-No; they have not got the way<br />
<strong>of</strong> making it. .<br />
49417. Have you ever tried ?-It is made <strong>of</strong> chilled iron, and these people <strong>of</strong> Buda-Pesth have<br />
been working for sixty years before they got it to this point, and they have lost thousands <strong>of</strong> pounds in<br />
doing it.<br />
49418. And if you get these in, you say the consumer will save more ?-They will get a better<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> flour.<br />
49419. Should we get a better 2lb.loaf?-Yes, you will, and it will have more nourishing qualities<br />
iri it.<br />
You would have a quality worth one and a half times the other.<br />
49420. You say the people will benefit by this ?-Yes.<br />
49421. It is more wholesome and a better article ?-It is more wholesome and a better article.<br />
49422. By tl~e Chawnu~n.-Have you anything further to add ?-Nothing further.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
I<br />
I,<br />
Thomas Brunton sworn ancl examined.<br />
ThOmasBrunton, 49423. By t!.e Chairman.-What are you ?-Miller.<br />
8th May !883. 49424. Where is your Inill situated ?-Corner <strong>of</strong> Spencer and Little Flinders-streets.<br />
49425. How long have you been established as a miller in Melbourne ?-About twelve years.<br />
49426. What is the number <strong>of</strong> hands you have employed, it is returned as 42-is that the number<br />
now ?-Yes, I suppose so.<br />
49427. You have heard part <strong>of</strong> the evidence, at any rate, <strong>of</strong> the previous witness, have you not?<br />
-Yes.<br />
49428. Do you agree with his evidence as far as you have heard it ?-I clo not know, it was rather<br />
conflicting, I thought, in reference to the quality <strong>of</strong> flour. It is a very debatable point. You find the<br />
medical men in England condemning this fine-dressed :flour altogether. From a sanitary point o:f view<br />
I think it is a mistake, this patent :flour, and I disagree with Mr. Gibson in saying that it fetches 4s., much<br />
less 9s., a sack, more than the common :flour does.<br />
49429. What is the difference in the value according to your experience ?-I do not think this fine<br />
patent flour is usecl anywhere except in London, and the wealthy towns in England amongst a comparatively<br />
limited few, because in the population <strong>of</strong> London there is nine-tenths poor people who want a fine big<br />
loaf, and a cheap one. This is used for pastry and rolls.. .Ancl every mail we are getting worcl that the<br />
.Americans and the Hungarians are going in for the straight grade. "\Vhat Mr. Gibson says about this fine<br />
quality is very creditable to him as a miller, but that flour is not much used.<br />
49430. By "straight grade" you mean the whole corn ground up ?-No. Yon understand there<br />
are :firsts, and seconds, and thirds there-[7ifen·ing to the samples upon the table J. 'What is done is to mix<br />
them all together, and that makes an average quality <strong>of</strong> a sack <strong>of</strong> flour called a straight grade.<br />
49431. Though there are three s:1mples here, one only is from the fine machinery, and two <strong>of</strong> them<br />
are from the oi·clinary mode <strong>of</strong> milling ?-I was not aware <strong>of</strong> that.<br />
49432. Have you any alteration in the tariff to propose ?-I agree with Mr. Gibson in every sense<br />
as to the desirability <strong>of</strong> taking: <strong>of</strong>f the duty from patent machinery. No doubt that milling, till the last<br />
few years, was the saxue as it has been since the time <strong>of</strong> Pharaoh. But now a completely new proces;;; h&s
1463<br />
taken the place <strong>of</strong> mill-stones, and this machinery ought to come in free, for the porcelain rollers and the ThomasBrunton,<br />
chilled iron rollers cannot be made here, and they ought to come in free as the silk for dressing does. Bt~ 0 ~i::';~83 ,<br />
49433. Mr; Gibson gave us evidence in favour <strong>of</strong> removing the duty from wheat altogether, how does<br />
that accord with yom experience ?-I think it is really unnecessary. It does not bring in a penny <strong>of</strong><br />
revenue, and I see no necessity to stain the statute-book with it.<br />
49434. You agree with Mr. Gibson that it should be removed ?-Yes, I think so. I think the<br />
competition could not be greater than it is now.<br />
49435. Have you any dealings in other cereals than wheat ?-No, I deal in wheat principally.<br />
49436. You do not express any opinion upon the duty upon barley and oats ?-I think the farmers<br />
in this country are sufficiently protected, and have been so sufficiently long, and as they do not grow sufficient<br />
barley to supply our wants they ought to give it up altogether, and let us get om· supply from New<br />
Zealand, or somewhere else.<br />
49437. Before giving that evidence, I clo not know whether you considered the fact that during the<br />
last three or fom years, since the last alteration <strong>of</strong> the duty upon barley, and since the alteration, at the<br />
same date, <strong>of</strong> the duty upon malt, the farmers have been growing a much larger quantity <strong>of</strong> barley, and that<br />
they are, year by year, increasing it ?-Does that apply to this last year, I thought it was less?<br />
49438. Everyone admits that last year was a bad crop, but taking the nm <strong>of</strong> the last three or four<br />
years, they are growing much more barley than they clicl five or six years ago. You know, as a fact, that<br />
about 1879 the duty on barley was doubled over and above what it was previously, and above what other<br />
cereals paid ?-Yes.<br />
49439. Concurrently with that an excise duty was put upon malt ?-Yes.<br />
49440. The result is that nearly all the malt now used in the colony is grown and manufactnred<br />
here ?-Yes.<br />
49441. Unless you bear that in mind you >vill mislead the Commission and yourself, in recommending<br />
the remission <strong>of</strong> the duty upon barley, upon the ground that the farmers were not taking advantage <strong>of</strong> it?<br />
-Perhaps it may not he judiciotls to remove the duty <strong>of</strong>f barley just now, but it must be upon the other<br />
cereals, for when production is in advance <strong>of</strong> consumption what is the use <strong>of</strong> protection?<br />
49442. Has the production <strong>of</strong> oats in this colony ove1TUU the consumption <strong>of</strong> oats in this colony?-<br />
I am not able to speak clefinitcly upon that.<br />
49443. You clo not deal in oats ?-No.<br />
49444. And you are not able to speak with authority upon that ?-No.<br />
49445. Then your evidence may be fairly confined to the question <strong>of</strong> wheat?-Yes.<br />
49446. And leave the parties interested in other grains to speak for them themselves ?-Yes.<br />
49447. Have you anything more to aclcl in relation to the duties that affect you as a miller?-! clo<br />
not think so. I concur with Mr. Gibson in reference to belting and Sl1cks, that they indirectly press upon<br />
the mlllers, but I do not think it is <strong>of</strong> sufficient importance to be worthy <strong>of</strong> the attention <strong>of</strong> the trade,<br />
myself.<br />
49448. By Jfr. ~"4fclntyre.-As to the barley, it is simply an opinion you give about barley ?-That<br />
is all.<br />
49449. It is not in your business ?-No.<br />
49450. As to machinery, did ever you try to get this class <strong>of</strong> machinery that you require in your<br />
works made in the colony ?-No.<br />
49451. How do you know then that it could not be made ?-Just upon the same principle that you<br />
can only get French burrs in France. And porcelain clay simply cannot be made.<br />
49452. You understand that the impression prevails in this country that anything under the sun can<br />
be made, if you protect it highly enough ?-I do not know that exactly. I have got a lot <strong>of</strong> machinery out<br />
lately, and I felt rather sore to have to pay 27~ duty upon it; it was pu.tent machinery.<br />
49453. But never having tried to get it made in the colony you do not know whether it can be made<br />
here ?-Purifiers, which are the greatost improvements, I think, which have taken place in milling in the<br />
last ten years, certainly could be made ii1 the colony, and I believe Bocldington is making them now.<br />
49454. You see unless we get evidence to show that the article you speak <strong>of</strong> cannot be made in the<br />
colony, except at very great expense, <strong>of</strong> course we should not be in a position to recommend your policy to<br />
be adopted ?-I understand the purifiers made here work very well.<br />
49455 . .Are they a patent here ?-No, the patent L1.ws here are so loose that if a new invention<br />
comes in, any man may patent it at once.<br />
49456. As to wheat, you did not hold with Mr. Gibson as to the fmer qualities being an improvement,<br />
as compared with coarser qualities ?-That is simply a matter <strong>of</strong> opinion.<br />
49457. That is medical opinion ?-That is medical opinion and practical opinion. I may say I was<br />
a baker for many years before I was a miller, ancl bakers want a good strong clasH <strong>of</strong> flom that will take<br />
up a good deal <strong>of</strong> water aucl make plenty <strong>of</strong> bread. That is what they want, if it is <strong>of</strong> a colour that satisfies<br />
the customers.<br />
49458. You think the flour that pleases the baker, is the one that turns out the most loaves, though<br />
it may be an inferior article as far as the public are concerned ?-My experience is that I have tried it, aml<br />
it makes a particularly white beautiful flour hut it lacks strength, and consequently it clid not give that<br />
satisfaetion to the baker that the other class did. .<br />
49459. That is the finer class ?-Yes.<br />
49460, And [I suppose they use it Tlith alum and other things ?-I do not think it; they do not<br />
require it in tbis country, with the fine class <strong>of</strong> wheat they have. They may use some lime water, perhaps.<br />
40461. By 11fr. Zox.-In reference to the nutriment in this :flour dressed by patent machinery, clo<br />
you consicler it possesses equally as much or more than the other samples <strong>of</strong> :flour ?-That is exactly where<br />
the faculty differ. .<br />
49462. But I want your opinion; can you give an opinion at all'npon it?-I can give you an extract<br />
from a London journal <strong>of</strong> some German philosopher who feel two: dogs, one upon pure wheat ftonr and the other<br />
upon pollard, and the dog fed upon pollard grew stronger and was well, while the other actl1ally lingerecT<br />
~md died. The germ is entirely taken out <strong>of</strong> the flour by this proces,-;; but it is debated, and very<br />
successfully I think, that the germ <strong>of</strong> the grain is what constitutes the real nutriment <strong>of</strong> the grain itself.
~·homasBrunton, 49463. What is the clifference in this colony, as far as expense is concerned, between the flour<br />
slli:";i~'sa. dressed by this patent machinery and t.he course flour that we have seen to~day ?-The cost is simply interest<br />
upon the money-upon the outlay addecl and the duty added. Take the interest say at 10 per cent.<br />
49464. What price do they ch>wge per ton difference upon this flour?-We do not rmtke any flour <strong>of</strong><br />
that class.<br />
49465. Have you any <strong>of</strong> this patent machinery that Mr. Gibson has ?-Yes.<br />
49466. This Hungarian machinery ?-No. We have everything he has got, I think, except the<br />
rollers.<br />
4946 7. If the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f this machinery, do you think it would be imported ?-Yes, I think<br />
so. You are bouml to. We must improve the colour <strong>of</strong> our flour to be able to compete, even in Sydney, bnt it is<br />
singular how fashion changes. Now the bakers there and the public are far more particular to have a white<br />
loaf' than they are here. The same applies to London and the West <strong>of</strong> England. The bread in Glasgow, to<br />
look at, is worth 2d. a loaf more t.lum the bread in Edinburgh, consequently as a manufacturer you have to<br />
manufacture what will suit your customers.<br />
4!J468. Can the machinery you nse in yonr factory he made in this country?-Yes, I think so.<br />
At any rate all except the disc mill (I have got no rollers) that I have got. The disc mill is a clifterent<br />
process <strong>of</strong> reducing wheat to small proportions. It is upon the same principle as the rollers.<br />
49469. Then what reasons could this Commission give to the general public, who at present believe<br />
in protection, for doing awny with the duties if the article can be manufactured in this country ?-I should<br />
say to the mill machinists here-" Show me a machine equnl to that, or show me that you can make one,"<br />
and that woulrl be enough. But they say, "I cannot do that, I have not the materi11l."<br />
49470. Suppose a machine cost a certain sum <strong>of</strong> money, what would be the difference in the percentage,<br />
as far as value is concerned, between the colonial~made article and the English-made article <strong>of</strong> a similar<br />
sort <strong>of</strong> machinery ?-They say a purifier costs here £140 made by BQ(ldington ; they could be got, I should<br />
sav, for £70 or £80.<br />
" 49471. By llfr. Jl{clntyre.-An equal machine ?-Yes, I think so. There are two machines; I have<br />
one that would do the same work.<br />
49472. By .11fr. Zoil~.-Are we to understand you that an article that would cost you £140 here, if<br />
it could be importecl from England duty free, it could be laid clown here for £70 ?-£70 or £80-that is not<br />
taking the duty, you know.<br />
. 49473. No, taking freight and insurance and the price <strong>of</strong> the article itself without duty ?-Yes.<br />
49474. And there would be a difference in your opinion, between 60 and 70 per cent. now, or nearly<br />
100 per cent. difference?-Yes, I should think that in certain machinery.<br />
49475. Do you use many bags in your business ?-Yes, we do.<br />
49476. Do you use many <strong>of</strong> the colonially manufactured article ?-When they are cheaper than the.<br />
others we do.<br />
49477. Are they ever cheaper ?-I have seen them cheaper.<br />
49478. Do you think that without the duty upon bags the colonial manufacturer could compete<br />
with those from India and other places ?-No, I always thought it a mistake. I may say it is my opinion<br />
that it is a mistake to put a protective duty upon anything where the raw material is not native to the<br />
country.<br />
49479. How many bags, colonial made, are nsed to those imported, that is what is the percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
the one to the other ?-I should say not cent. <strong>of</strong> what are used are colonial made.<br />
49480. Is the quality as good I think so.<br />
49481. By lvfr. Bosisto.-Have you had any experience with reference to the quality <strong>of</strong> the wheat<br />
grown from year tD year on the same lancl, as to t.he quality <strong>of</strong> the flour derived therefrom ?-Am I to<br />
understand that question---<br />
4~)482. You are aware that in many parts <strong>of</strong> this country farmers are growing wheat upon the same<br />
piece <strong>of</strong> land year nfter year ?-Yes.<br />
49483. Have you any evidence to give us positively as to whether the wheat grown in such a way is<br />
not becoming more or less deteriorated in value ?-Yes, I think it is ; it loses its glutinous prope1iies after<br />
long cultivation.<br />
49484. Do you find that wheat grown in districts where fanners have been growing wheat every<br />
year, has deteriorated in its vnlue for flour'?-Yes.<br />
49485. You do ?-I do decidedly.<br />
4!1486. Have you had any ex:pe1ience in reference to wheat grown upon land where there has been a<br />
rotation <strong>of</strong> crops, at all that more applies to Kyneton and the old settled districts. .<br />
41J487. It has not come under your notice as to whether, then, it continues in its level full value?<br />
No.<br />
49488 .Are you <strong>of</strong> opinion that the way in which m:1ny <strong>of</strong> our farmers are growing their wheat crops<br />
is really detriment:1l to themselves and to the flour trade '?-Yes, I think so. We all desire to "et wheat<br />
from new l:1ml that has never been cultivated before. That is always the strongest wheat, grad11:J:ly it goes<br />
clown and deteriorates in value; that, eoupled with dirt, barley and wild oats that are mixed with it. The<br />
districts vary too. The districts around Dookie and Yarrawonga, the lime country, produce very good<br />
wheat ; but that from the Goulburn valley and the flat country is very poor, it is all starch and water. Most<br />
<strong>of</strong> our country has just been taken up recently.<br />
49489. You are aW!tre that in some places the farmers are really devoting their attention to the<br />
rotation <strong>of</strong> crops, while in others they are exhausting the soil by growing wheat perpetually?-Yes, that<br />
is the general practice, I believe, round about Kyneton, and near town ; farming is carried on as a science.<br />
19490. 'fake the Wimmera, where wheat is grown year after year for five or six years, is the wheat<br />
deteriorating in its flour value ?-The VVimmera
1465<br />
49494. Do you think you could draw up a list <strong>of</strong> articles upon which you think the tariff ought to Thomas.Brunton,<br />
be altered ?-Yes.<br />
st~::;~sa.<br />
~ . 49495. Do you think you could send a list <strong>of</strong> such articles as the millers, as a body, desire to be<br />
altered in the tariff ?-They could be all described under the word "Rollers "-chil)ed rollers and porcelain<br />
rollers.<br />
49496. Now as to corn sacks and belting ?-I do not know that you could get belting much cheaper<br />
if the duty was <strong>of</strong>f to-morrow.<br />
49497. Do you think the millers could agree among themselves as to the list <strong>of</strong> goods that they want<br />
the duty <strong>of</strong>f ?-I do not think they could, beyond the rollers ; they would be all unanimous upon that point.<br />
You come upon the question <strong>of</strong> purifiers then, and you trench upon a vested interest here which is perfectly<br />
capable <strong>of</strong> making them.<br />
49498. I think you answered this question to Mr. Zox-if the duty was taken <strong>of</strong>f this patent<br />
machinery referred to by Mr. Gibson, would it be more extensively used in the colony ?-I think so.<br />
Whenever you have to send out flour to the world you must compete with those who send flour to a similar<br />
market.<br />
49499. I do not ask for medical evidence as to which is the best ?-Not at all, it is simply a question<br />
<strong>of</strong> opinion.<br />
49500. It is what is most saleable ?-Yes.<br />
49501. By the Chairman.-As to the machinery, I understood you to say to Mr. Zox that a machine<br />
that would be purchased in London· for £69 would cost in this colony about £140 ?-I am :not quite sure<br />
what Bodington charges for his purifiers ; it depends upon the size and the superficial surface <strong>of</strong> silk in the<br />
purifier.<br />
49502. That is about what they pay, £140 ?-Yes.<br />
49503. Why do not they import them and pay duty, for it would pay at £140 ?-They are importing<br />
them as hard as they can. A lot <strong>of</strong> purifiers came in in the last six months. Of course there are purifiers<br />
and purifiers. ·<br />
49504. By Mr. Mclntyre.-I suppose you just take the colonial article when you are obliged to?<br />
No; that would be discrediting Mr. Bodington; he is as good a mill machinist as there is in the world.<br />
But as to rollers, they have not got the materials, and they have :not the opportunity <strong>of</strong> getting the chilled<br />
iron and porcelain.<br />
49505. By the Chairmam.-You have :nothing further to add upon that point ?-No, nothing<br />
further.<br />
49506. Those articles are still imported in large numbers now, and pay the duty ?-Yes.<br />
49507. And they only buy the colonial article at an enhanced price when there are none <strong>of</strong> the imported<br />
in the market?-Yes.<br />
The witness 'll!ithdrew..<br />
Willialli Aitkeu sworn and examined.<br />
49508. By the Chairman.-What firm do you represent ?-Aitkeu and Scott.<br />
49509. Where is your mill situated ?-In Carlton.<br />
49510. How long have you been a miller in the colony ?-Since 1854.<br />
49511. How many hands are you employing ?-I think about twenty hands.<br />
49512. Will you point out to the Commission, please, the points wherein you differ from the<br />
previous witnesses ?-It places me almost in an invidious position to do so, because Mr. Gibson and Mr.<br />
Brunton both have been importing this patent machinery, and we have got none <strong>of</strong> them, and I can only<br />
speak from my experience <strong>of</strong> the ordinary machinery. I think that the results that have been shown from<br />
the patent machinery, or almost the same results, could be got from our machinery now in operation. Mr.<br />
Brunton says our machinery is as old as Pharaoh ; I think that is an argument in its favour. If it has stood<br />
that time there must be something good in it.<br />
49513. Do I understand your evidence to go to this point, that you do not want the duty <strong>of</strong>f patent<br />
machinery ?-No.<br />
49514. The question as to which is the whiter flour is not a question for us to consider at all; our<br />
question is what you recommend in relation to the duty. The previous witnesses agree that it would be a<br />
good thing to take <strong>of</strong>f the duty upon patent machinery; do you disagree with them ?-I could not give an<br />
opinion upon that, because we can get on without it; besides which, I think the machinery could be made<br />
in the colony except some parts <strong>of</strong> it; all the rest could be made in the colony.<br />
49515. On whatever point do you differ from them ?-I would rather the Commission would ask<br />
me questions than that I should make statements.<br />
49516. I want to save your time and the time <strong>of</strong> the Commission too. I understood that you wished<br />
to be examined because you differed from the previous witnesses upon some points material to the question.<br />
If you do not differ from them, it is no use going on. However, I will ask you do you agree with the<br />
previous witnesses as to taking <strong>of</strong>f the duty on wheat ?-No, I do not.<br />
49517. Will you state to the Commission your grounds for objecting to the removal <strong>of</strong> it ?-I know<br />
as to the town millers it would be an advantage to them, but it would be much to the detriment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
farmers <strong>of</strong> this country, if the duties are taken <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
49518. If it were to the detriment <strong>of</strong> the farmers would it be to the interest <strong>of</strong> the millers ?-They<br />
are pretty nearly identicaL<br />
49519. Then would it be to the interest <strong>of</strong> the miller to have this duty taken <strong>of</strong>f?-Yes, because<br />
then :Melbourne would be a sort <strong>of</strong> emporium for the whole <strong>of</strong> the colonies-a centre to which all the grain<br />
would come to be treated. It would be good for the ::Ylelbourne merchants and millers., but it would act<br />
prejudicially to the farmers ancl country millers.<br />
'<br />
49520. Have you got any facts to support that opinion ?-The facts are these; that before there was<br />
a duty upon wheat, flour was dearer. :Flour is cheaper in Melbourne now than it was then, ancl it is<br />
cheaper in Melbourne at the present moment than in any other part <strong>of</strong> the colonies, except perhaps New<br />
Zealand.<br />
49521. Have you any opinion to express or any evidence to give in relation to the duty upon barley<br />
and oats-do you deal in those articles ttt all ?-~o, that is more a question for farmers.<br />
T.i.ntl
WUllam Altken,<br />
continued,<br />
8th May 1883.<br />
1466<br />
49522. Do you do an export trade ?-We do nothing in that. .<br />
49523. Ha-ve yon anything further to add?-Nothing but this, that a great deal has been smd about<br />
the different grades in flour and the qualities and nutriment in wheat. Here, in Melbourne, the poorest<br />
people eat the -very best <strong>of</strong> flour, they will not have two grades <strong>of</strong> flour, and this patent mac~nery is no use<br />
unless it does make different grades. The present machinery in use makes the one grade, whteh apparently<br />
is suitable to the present wants <strong>of</strong> the community. In those places or countries where there are different<br />
classes <strong>of</strong> people, some <strong>of</strong> whom want -very fine bread, the machinery is no. doubt adapted to them. But<br />
here, where every one is alike, the old machinery we find suits the purpose quite well.<br />
49524. By Jir Walker.-You say that the old machinery is perfectly well adapted to this colony,<br />
but do you do an export trade in flour at all wholly a town trade.<br />
49525. Suppose you did an export trade, would not that patent machinery be very useful to you?<br />
I cannot say.<br />
49526. You would not contradict the evidence <strong>of</strong> those millers who do an export trade ?-Decidedly<br />
not.<br />
49527. You say a great deal <strong>of</strong> the machinery spoken to by the other millers could be made here ;<br />
do yon known that <strong>of</strong> your own knowledge ?-I do not know the new machir1ery tl:mt has just come out;<br />
but speaking about the purifiers, they are a late introduction into the trade. After they were imported<br />
here they began to be made here equal to the imported.<br />
49528. What is the difference in the price; do yoU: agree >vith the difference stated already ?-No, I<br />
think not. The difference is this. , You could order boots, for instance, from home, two pairs--you might<br />
order one pair worth 15s. and the other £1, and there would be a difference in the manufacture and the<br />
way they are got up.<br />
Ml529. Which is the best-the imported one or the colonial-made ?-I believe the colonial works<br />
equally well with the imported.<br />
49530. You ha-ve no knowledge yourself <strong>of</strong> that ?-No.<br />
49531. In regard to the duty on wheat, you said that the injury done by taking <strong>of</strong>f the duty 11pon<br />
wheat would be to the farmers ?-To the farmers especittlly.<br />
49532. You said also that it would be a benefit to Melbourne, as it would make Melbourne the<br />
emporium for the distribution <strong>of</strong> wheat ?-I think so.<br />
49533. You are a Melbourne miller, are you not ?-Yes.<br />
49534. And you give this evidence solely in the interests <strong>of</strong> the country<br />
49535. And against your own interests ?-And against my own interests.<br />
49536. By .Lltfr. JJiaintyre.-You said that, in your .opinion, if the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f wheat, it<br />
would act prejudicially to the farmers. You did not explain how-how could it be prejudicial to the<br />
farmers; is not the English market the standarcl for the price <strong>of</strong> wheat ?-I will tell you.<br />
49537. Do not we produce more wheat than we consume ?-We do.<br />
49538. Are we likely to be falling back in our production ?-I do not know.<br />
49539. Suppose we continue just to produce more than we consume, in what way would the duty<br />
taken <strong>of</strong>f wheat be detrimental to the farming interest ?-In this way ; carriage is cheaper by wnter than<br />
it is by land, and have seen the time in Melbourne here when we could order wheat from from Adelaide,<br />
and get it quicker and cheaper from A.delaide than we could from a distance <strong>of</strong> 35 miles from Melbourne.<br />
49540. You are!not likely to see those times ugain ?-No; but the principle works the same way.<br />
49541. In that case it would just add to the quantity we should require to produce ?-Here?<br />
49542. Yes ?-Yes. <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
49543. How could that be detrimental to the farmer ?-If this is made a centre, and there is an<br />
.outlet in other places, naturally the country places would suffer.<br />
49544. But he is always exporting; you cannot consume what he you now. Another thing<br />
that you said-wheat was cheaper now than it was formerly; we all know that, but you surely do not<br />
mean to say that it is cheaper because <strong>of</strong> the tax being put upon it ?-It is the result <strong>of</strong> the tax being put<br />
upon it, in my opinion.<br />
4954.5. But does not the London market govern it in the first place '?-Yes ; but you arc not putting<br />
the question so a~ to draw out the answer to it in the right manner. If you put the question right, we<br />
we should never have been exporters but for the duty.<br />
49546. We became large producers by that ?-Yes, by the duty.<br />
49547. Having got that, how would it affect us ?-I do not think it would affect us much ; but the<br />
effect would be that whife labour is cheaper in South ~ustralia, and they can farm in South Australia cheaper<br />
than we c:1n clo they, that, can compete With our farmers here.<br />
49548. How you know that labom is cheaper in South A nstralia? -Because all their harvesting<br />
is done by strippers there, and we cannot use them here.<br />
49.549. But it is done here in a great many places ?-\Vherever they can use them, but there are a<br />
great many places where they cannot use them.<br />
49550. And so there are in Sonth Australia ?-I think there are not many plaees in South<br />
Austr11lia where thcv c11unot llse them.<br />
49551. the Hon. JJ{r. Lo1·inwr.-Do you object to the removal <strong>of</strong> duty upon machinery ?-Not<br />
at all.<br />
49552. Do you approve <strong>of</strong> the remova:-would it benefit any one else ?-I do not know ; I do not<br />
give an opinion; I am perfectly indifferent.<br />
49553. You do uot ebject to the removal <strong>of</strong> the duties ?-Cert11inly not.<br />
49554. If n class <strong>of</strong> millers advocate the remov11l <strong>of</strong> the duties, you would appro-ve <strong>of</strong> it 7-I<br />
would not oppose it.<br />
-19555. Do you think you would import them more extensively if that were done ?-They are only<br />
an experiment here If they turn out a success, <strong>of</strong> course they will be more imported. ·<br />
4955G. Do you think they me not going to be a success ?-I would not like to make the<br />
experiment yet.<br />
49557. Do you know whether they have been p, success in other parts <strong>of</strong> the world ?-In<br />
England and America they are very much divided in opinion. Some <strong>of</strong> them are throwing over the rollers<br />
for the stones, and I think, frqm what I learn by reading, that the two go best together-the rollers and.<br />
the stones.
1467<br />
4·9558. Youwoufd not be dispo~ed to try tl1em yourself?-Not in the meantime.<br />
49559 .. Are there any other duties that you think ought to be removed-do you approve <strong>of</strong><br />
upon corn sacks ?-I think nothing presses very heavy up<strong>of</strong>t its.<br />
49560. Some people think there is no reason'why it should press at all-do .you think it would be<br />
an a:clv:antage to the trade to have the duty <strong>of</strong>t' ?-I do not think it would be much advantage.<br />
49561. Would it make things cheaper ?-It would have that tendency.<br />
49562. I suppose you will not argue t.hat a duty on corn s::wks at all t<strong>of</strong>fect£ the price ?-It is felt, I<br />
think, as a burthen.<br />
49563. The manufacturers cannot compete in any case with Calcutta, I suppose, duty or no duty?<br />
-I think not. I am quite at one with Mr. Brunton that where the raw material is not at hand there<br />
should not be duty in any case.<br />
49564. By Jlfr. Bosisto.-Have you had any experience in reference to the growing <strong>of</strong> wheat upon<br />
the same soil year after year about the amount <strong>of</strong> flour derived from the wheat ?-No, I have no experience<br />
<strong>of</strong> that.<br />
49565. Is there not a possibility that the farmers are working against you millers by working upon<br />
the same soil for the same material year after year ?-No doubt that that is a drawback.<br />
49566. A great drawback ?-Yes, no doubt <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
Tl•e ~Ditness<br />
withdrew.<br />
Leonarcl J ones sworn and examined.<br />
49567. By the Chairman.-What firm do you represent ?-James F. McKenzic ::tnd Company.<br />
49568. Where is your firm established ?-In Bond-street, Melbourne.<br />
49569. How long has it been established ?-Since 1852 ; that is, not in Boml-street, that is in<br />
Melbourne.<br />
· 49570 .. That is 30 years; how many hands are you employing now?-We are employing 30 men,<br />
20 boys; and 20 girls.<br />
49571. Do you take the boys on as apprentices ?-No.<br />
49572. Do you pay them wages from the first ?-Yes.<br />
49573. Do you pay them piece work dr day work ?-Per week.<br />
49574. What do you commence their wages at ?-We start them at 7s.<br />
49575. About what age are they when you take them at that ?-About f01n·teen years <strong>of</strong> age.<br />
49576. How do you increase them ?-"VVe advance them after they have been six months a shilling<br />
a week, and then I do not know exactly how after that. H they are capable, we advance them a shilling or<br />
eighteen pence.<br />
· 49577. And when they are full journeymen what can they earn ?-They are not exactly journeymen<br />
in our place, packers and others.<br />
49578. They do not remain in the business then ?-They do not remain in the business.<br />
49579. No technical knowledge they acquire enables them to get a living afterwards except<br />
in some branches. foremen and so on.<br />
49580. vVhat are the principal lines you manufacture ?-We manufacture oatmeal, mustanl, cocoa,<br />
chicory, pearl barley, split peas, patent groats and barley, and a great number <strong>of</strong> other things.<br />
49581. What <strong>of</strong> those items are affected by the tariff ?-Oatmeal is affected.<br />
49582. Will you pick out those from your list which are affected by the tariff and upon which you<br />
wish to give evidence; have you got them ready marked ?-Yes, I have.<br />
49583. Will you let me have them, please ?-All that I wish to speak about is mustard, and that has<br />
reference to a matter ~•bout which I do not know whether it is within the province <strong>of</strong> this Commission. We<br />
labour under a disadvantage in llaving to conform to a certail1 clause in the Food Adulteration Act, and we<br />
have to label our mustard as containing other wholesome ingredients.<br />
49584. Do I understand you to say that mustard is the only item out <strong>of</strong> that list upon which you<br />
wish to give evidence ?-Yes.<br />
49585. You are satisfied with the duty as it affects all the other articles ?-No, I would like to add<br />
oats to the mustard.<br />
49586. The otber items in t.he list which are duti.able you are satisfied for the duty to remain Ul)On<br />
as it is ?-I am. ·<br />
. 49587: Now about mustard frrst; what is it you wish to say in relation to that ·?-We have got to<br />
comply with a clause in the Adulteration <strong>of</strong> Food Act; we are compelled to put this upon our label, ''This<br />
tin contains pure mustard with other wholesome ingredients used in the preparation <strong>of</strong> double superfine<br />
mustard." I do not object to that being on; it is very necessary it should be on; but still the imported<br />
article, made by Colman, does not bear that; and I think if we are compelled to put it on, the imported<br />
article should be compelled to have it on.<br />
49588. Are you compelled to put this statement upon all qualities <strong>of</strong> your mustard upon<br />
every article we manufacture.<br />
49589. Are the importers exempt from that restriction in relation to any <strong>of</strong> the imported goods they<br />
send here ?-I do not know. You see it is not upon this label.<br />
49590. You show us here one label, and the statement is not on, but if you showed us the label <strong>of</strong><br />
another quality <strong>of</strong> mustarcl, say, would you not find that statement upon it ?-I do not think it is upon any<br />
other quality, none that I know <strong>of</strong>.<br />
49591. None <strong>of</strong> Colman's ?-None <strong>of</strong> Colman's.<br />
49592. I understand you not to object to this law or its operation ?-Not at all.<br />
49593. All that you object to is that it is partial in its operation, applying only to the local men and<br />
not to the importers ?-That is it exactly. ,<br />
49594. If it applied to both, you would be perfectly satisfied ?-If it applied to both I would be<br />
perfectly satisfied.<br />
49595. Is that all you have to say about mustard that is all.<br />
49596. By Jlir. Bosisto.-Does not Colman send ont a mustard with the words" Genuine mustard,"<br />
when it is ~enuine, in siiver or gold letters ; I am not quite sure; I could not answer that with a11y<br />
Leonnrcl JonesJ<br />
8th May 1883.
'k<br />
_Loonai'd Jones,<br />
f.Ymlintwl,<br />
8thlll'aJlB83,<br />
1468<br />
confidence at present; but I know he has sent out a mustard here called" Genuine mustard,'' but it is almost<br />
out <strong>of</strong> the market.<br />
49597. Does not he send out an article to this colony with the words in silver" Genuine mustard"?<br />
-Yes, he does.<br />
49598. And it is not upon that ?-It is not.<br />
49599. But you are aware that he sends it out? -I am aware that he sends out a" Genuine mustard"<br />
marked in silver or gold, as you describe.<br />
49600. By th,e Chai:rman.-But even upon that label which has the words" Genuine mustard" in<br />
silver letters this clause does not appear that you say that you have to put upon your labels ?-It does<br />
not appear ; but it would not be necessary upon genuine mustard, you understand, to have that on at all.<br />
You see Colman makes up mustard in the same manner as we do, and we have to put in that clause, and he<br />
does not put it in.<br />
49601. By Mr. Mcinty1·e.-Then "Genuine mustard," as imported by Mr. Colman, means a different<br />
class <strong>of</strong> mustard, not that made by you ?-Yes, nothing but mustard.<br />
49602. Is it not sufficient satisfaction to your business that that should be so ?-But ours has to say<br />
that it is ndxed " with other wholesome ingredients," and the public see that, and they say there are other<br />
ingredients in McKenzie's and there are none in Colman's. I think it would be only fair that Colman should<br />
be compelled to put the same thing upon his mustard as we do upon ours, to be fair, or else let us take <strong>of</strong>f<br />
ours anti let Colman's in in the same fashion.<br />
49603. Then we would require to prohibit the importation <strong>of</strong> this article unless it is branded like<br />
the eolonial article ?-As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, Colman eould not issue that label in London. He would be<br />
obliged to conform to the law in London, the Adulteration <strong>of</strong> Food Act. . As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, Keen's<br />
mustard is marked like ours, but Colman's is not.<br />
49604. By Mr. Zox.-Your complaint is, that upon every tin <strong>of</strong> mustard that you sell you are bound<br />
to say what the article really eontains ?-Will you be kind enough not to put it in that way ? I do not<br />
complain.<br />
49605. But I want to go further with it. You say, if you are compelled to do that, you think it<br />
unfair that our imported article should be introduced here without containing similar words to what your<br />
tin is compelled to bear ?-I think it would be an injustice to us that our goods go before the public as a<br />
mixture while the others appear as pure.<br />
49606. Are you sure, in the event <strong>of</strong> that article being sold in England and not exported, it would<br />
be a matter <strong>of</strong> impossibility, without infringment upou the Act, for Colman to put that label on the tin ?<br />
I think it would be an infringment <strong>of</strong> the Act ; but you are, no doubt, better posted up on those things<br />
. than I am.<br />
49607. What suggestion would you make to this Commission by which they would be enabled to<br />
control the exporters from England as to the labels they put upon their tins ?-They can publish a notice to<br />
the effect that articles made.up in a similar manner should have the same label-should conform to the<br />
Adulteration <strong>of</strong> Food Act <strong>of</strong> this colony.<br />
49608. Have you found it any way detrimental to your business ?-No. I mean to say that there<br />
are spme natures that would get hold <strong>of</strong> our tin <strong>of</strong> mustard, and would say, " This is not mustard, there ia<br />
something else in it beside mustard," and they take up the English tin, and say, "This is mustard, there<br />
is no mistake about that, there is nothing in it but mustard!'<br />
49609. Do not you think that the very arguments that you are now using would be rather in your<br />
favour than antagonistic, because upon your tin <strong>of</strong> mustard there is a label by which the public know it is<br />
pure mustard ?-No, that is not the case. It says it contains "Other ingredients."<br />
49610. Are you quite sure that Colman's mustard contains the same component parts <strong>of</strong> adulteration,<br />
if we may so term it, as your mustard does ?-I could not be sure, but I think it is extremely likely, and it<br />
is most probable. .<br />
49611. You do not dispute Colman's mustard being pure ?-I do not dispute it; it is no more pure<br />
than ours is, that particular brand.<br />
49612. By the Hon Mr. Lorimer.-What is the relative value <strong>of</strong> your double superfine and Colman's<br />
superfine ; do you aim at making the same quality as Colman's?-We do. We consider our "D.F.S.''<br />
mustard is as good as Colman's "D.S.F."<br />
49613. Have you any duty to pay upon yours ?-No.<br />
49614. What duty has Colman to pay upon his ?-2d. a pound.<br />
49615. Is not that more than an equivalent for the disadvantage <strong>of</strong> the label ?-No, it is not. If<br />
Colman's goods are allowed to come in here without that clause coming into operation, I think it should<br />
be struck <strong>of</strong>f ours.<br />
49616. What is your priee ?-Ss. 6d., retailing a box a time.<br />
49617. How much is that ?-1s. 5d. a pouml.<br />
49618. What is Colman's price in London for the same quality?-It is so long since I had anything<br />
to do with it that I could not exactly tell you the price in London. I can tell you the price here.<br />
49619. What is the price here ?-'fhe price <strong>of</strong> that quality is 9s. 6d.<br />
49620. I want it by the pound ?-'fhat is Is. 7d.<br />
49621. Just2d. a pound more than yours ?-Yes.<br />
49622. That is the difference in the duty?-Yes.<br />
49623. How is it that he has been able to get 2d. a pound more than you get ?-Just prejudice, I<br />
suppose.<br />
49624. Can you tell us what ad valorem this 2d. a pound comes to upon the average mustard imported<br />
?-I do not know the London prices; but as a matter <strong>of</strong> fact very little mustard imported is sold in<br />
the colony except" D.S.F ."<br />
49625. It used to be 10 per cent. ad valorem, was it not; when was it increased, was not it in<br />
1871; was that the increase <strong>of</strong> duty that increased your business in mustard?-Yes.<br />
49626. It has added to the colonial production ?-Decidedly.<br />
49627. Has it increased the price to the consumer ?-No, it has cheapened the price to the<br />
consumer.<br />
49628. Then, if the duty were reduced, do not you think the price would be reduced too ?-If the<br />
duty were reduced, we simply could not make any more mustard ; we could not compete.
1469<br />
49629. Where do you get your raw material ?-Partly from colonial-grown seed, and partly from<br />
home.<br />
49630. Have you any duties to pay upon it ?-No.<br />
49631. By ~w.r. Walker.-Do I understand you say that you cannot do with less than 2cl. a lb. upon<br />
mustard ?-Yes..<br />
49632. What is the reason for it. Do you pay more for your material than you do at home ?-We<br />
have to pay more for the raw material, that is one thing. At present we use other seed beside colonial; in<br />
fact we have to import mustard seed from home, white and brown both, as we1l as the colonial-grown<br />
article.<br />
49633. And the cost <strong>of</strong> your material is greater to you than the cost <strong>of</strong> the material to the home<br />
manufacturers ?-Yes, and also the cost <strong>of</strong> labour is considerably more to us, and machinery. We have to<br />
pay 27! per cent. ttpon the machinery that we use in the making <strong>of</strong> these articles.<br />
49634. Why do not you get your machinery made here ?-We cannot.<br />
49635. Have you tried?-We have not tried. I do not know <strong>of</strong> my own personal knowledge,<br />
because I am not a practical man as far as machinery is concerned, but I have heard it over and over again<br />
stated that the finer descriptions <strong>of</strong> machinery cannot be manufactured in the colony.<br />
49636. I understood, with regard to these labels, that all mustard that is genuine mustard needs no<br />
label <strong>of</strong> that kind?-I should think not. When an article is genuine there is no necessity.<br />
49637. Then it is only when it is mixed with other articles ?-Then you are compelled to conform to<br />
the Food Adulteration Act, and use th?se words. For instance, we say c<strong>of</strong>fee with chicory.<br />
49638. Then how is it that Colman is able to evade the pFovisions <strong>of</strong> that Act ?-I do not know.<br />
I think we have had correspondence with the Customs Department since 1881, and. each Commissioner that<br />
has been in power has always admitted the justice <strong>of</strong> our grievance, and said he would attend to it at once.<br />
49639. And never has done it ?-And never has done it; and now, I believe, it is referred to the<br />
Tariff Commission.<br />
49640. By Mr. Bosisto.-Is the brown mustard gro;vn in <strong>Victoria</strong> equal to the imported mustard?<br />
-It is not.<br />
49641. In what way. Is it smaller or is it not so pungent ?-It is no so much a difference in size,<br />
but it is not so pungent.<br />
49642. By the Chairman.-The only other item you wish to give evidence upon is the item <strong>of</strong> oats.<br />
What have you to say in relation to that ?-Mr. Gibson said he thought the duty should be removed, and<br />
he gave his reasons for it. I should say, if it is not removed entirely, it ought to be removed in a measure.<br />
I think 2s. a cental on oats is too much.<br />
49643. Are you sure it is 2s.? -2s. per cental.<br />
49644. What would you have it reduced to ?-I should think 6d. a bushel would be quite sufficient,<br />
that would be ls. 3cl. per cental.<br />
49645. Your proposal is to reduce it to 6d. a bushel, or Is. 3d. per cental. Can you see any objection<br />
to its being removed altogether ?-I would rather see it removed than not, but still I consider it too<br />
much if it is not to be removed. I consider 2s. a cental is too much. It acts against us in this way, that<br />
very <strong>of</strong>ten we have great difficulty in getting suitable oats to make our oatmeal from, and we have to buy<br />
New Zealand oats, and after we pay duty and wharfage rates it comes to about lO~d. a busheL I consider<br />
that is far too much duty.<br />
49646. What do you do with these oats when you get them; you convert them into oatmeal, do you<br />
not ?-No, all the New Zealand oats we purchase we manufacture into meal in bond for export, but we<br />
cannot use the oatmeal in this colony.<br />
49647. Do you wish the Commission to understand that you cannot get a sufficient supply <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Victoria</strong>n-grown oats to provide <strong>Victoria</strong> with its own oatmeal ?-Not <strong>of</strong> suitable quality.<br />
49648. To make the necessary quantity <strong>of</strong> oatmeal for consumption in <strong>Victoria</strong> ?-Yes, in order to<br />
. pay us. There are very much heavier oats in New Zealand, and we cannot get them in the colonies, as we<br />
always prefer New Zealand oats if we can get them at such a price as suits us.<br />
49649. Do I understand you to say that in your experience as a manufacturer <strong>of</strong> oatmeal you have<br />
been unable to obtain colonial oats suitable for the purpose ?-At times, not always; sometimes the markets<br />
vary.<br />
49650. Recently ?-Recently. At present in fact.<br />
49651. Has not the cultivation <strong>of</strong> oats in the colony increased lately ?-Yes, it has to a very large<br />
. extent; but at the same time they are not so suitable as the New Zealand potato oats.<br />
49652. The quality <strong>of</strong> the oats has not improved in proportion to the quantity produced ?-I am not<br />
sufficiently versed in that to say.<br />
49653. By the Hon. 11fr. Lorimer.-ls the quality that suits you best potato oats ?-Yes.<br />
49654. Are potato oats largely grown in this colony ?-No, they are not.<br />
49655. By the Chairman.-I understand you to say the quality <strong>of</strong> oats suitable to your purpose has<br />
not kept up to your demand ?-That is it, it has not.<br />
49656. And <strong>Victoria</strong>n growers, although they increased the quantity <strong>of</strong> oats grown, grow other<br />
kinds <strong>of</strong> oats and not what you want-is that it?-That is it.<br />
49657. What are the kinds suitable for that our Vietorian growers do grow ?-For feed purposes.<br />
49658. For horse feed?-Yes.<br />
49659. You want a different kind <strong>of</strong> oat J-Yes, we want a kind that will produce as much oatmeal<br />
as we can get.<br />
49660. Have you anything further to say ?-No.<br />
49661. By Mr. Walker.-You complain <strong>of</strong> the duty upon oats; are you willing to have the duty<br />
upon oatmeal reduced ?-If the duty is taken away from oats I would not object to see the duty upon<br />
oatmeal <strong>of</strong>ftoo.<br />
49662. That is, if the duty upon oats is abolished, you would be willing that the duty upon oatmeal<br />
should also be abolished ?-Yes. , ·<br />
49663. With regard to manufacturing pearl bru:ley ancl otmeal in bond, do you do it under the<br />
supervision <strong>of</strong> a locker?-We have not yet made any pearl barley in bond.<br />
49664. But you will do so ?-When we have necessity for it; we have not made application for it yet.<br />
Leonard Jones,<br />
continued, ·<br />
8th May 1883.
igard to dressing rice in bond, you get 2s. a cental differential duty I see?-Yes.<br />
49671. What does it cost you to dress it ?-The labour?<br />
49672. Yes ?-I shouM say from £1 to 30s.<br />
49673. Dressing, I suppose, just means putting it through the mill ?-No, it means a lot m'ore than<br />
that. It goes through machineq. .<br />
49674. To get this differential duty, all you require is to put it tht·ough the mill, is it not ?-You have<br />
to dress it. It goes into the mili undresseu tmcl comes out dressed, and that entitles you to the clifferential<br />
duty <strong>of</strong> 2s.<br />
4967 5. How much do you say it costs to dress rice ?-'I'hat depends upon the machinery you have.<br />
49676. How much does it cost you to dress a ton <strong>of</strong> rice ?-About £1 to 30s.<br />
49677. And you get £4 differential duty ?-No, £2.<br />
49678. Then you made a very good thing by this (h·essing ?-We clo not chmge that to our customers ;<br />
they get the benefit <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
49679. But the revenue loses it ?-That was the intention as far as I uuclerstood-I had a good deal to<br />
do with it at the time-to encourage the dressing <strong>of</strong> rice in the colonies.<br />
49680. How many hands do you employ in dressing rice ?-I could not very well separate them-say<br />
five altogether.<br />
49681. By l!ir.1ltlcintyre.-What is the value per pound <strong>of</strong> oatmeal ?-I assure you it is too cheap<br />
altogether, it is less than 2d. a pound.<br />
49682. And the duty upon it is 6s. per cental-uearly<br />
this colony.<br />
· 49683. Yes but there is?-V cry little.<br />
a pound ?-Yes, but no oatmeal comes into<br />
49684. There was £510 revenue last year ?-I do not know who uses it.<br />
49685. Then our porridge costs us ~d. a pound more indeed it does not. Your porridge costs<br />
you considerably less than it costs us to produce it.<br />
49686. Ancl ~cl. a lb. is on it ?-That is nothing to us; we can compete in oatmeal with all the world.<br />
49687. Then, if the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f oats, you would not object to take it <strong>of</strong>f oatmeal ?-Yes,<br />
decidedly I should ; how could we get on then ? *<br />
49688. The oats are your raw rmtterial, and you would get any quantity <strong>of</strong> it ?-I do not object if<br />
you take it <strong>of</strong>f the oat to leave it on the oatmeal.<br />
49689. Suppose we could not maoage to succeed in getting that clone, would you object to a 'reasonable<br />
reduction <strong>of</strong> the duty charged at present; do not you admit that Jilcl. a lb. is excessive ?-No, I do not;<br />
it does not interfere with us.<br />
49690. There was more duty coming in when you paid only 3s. a cental than now when you pay<br />
6s. ?-But there are a great many more producers <strong>of</strong> the article now.<br />
49691. Your oatmeal, fresh upon the spot, would sell better than tl1e imported article ?-Yes.<br />
49692. You uo not require to brand yom oatmeal, do you?-Yes, we put our own name in print.<br />
49693 .. This is the Health Act, section 39. I presume these are the words that necessitate your<br />
branding your mustard :-"Any article <strong>of</strong> food enclosed in or hearing any cover, capsule, wrapper, labelled<br />
seal, or euclosme, or imprint, or mark by which such article is made to represent that which it is not.'' Is<br />
that the reason, because there is nothing in tl1is to enforce the exact language you use ?-No, we have to<br />
conform to the Act by saying that "There are other wholesome ingredients." ·<br />
49694. Then, as a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, this is not mustard that you have here ?-It is not all mustard,<br />
but it is what is known in the trade and everywhere as mustanl.<br />
49695. Would not it do to call it a "Whisky blend" ?-It might do if it were a whisky.<br />
49696. Have you anything fnrther to add ?-No.<br />
49697. By the Gfwirman.-~Those are the only items you wish to speak about ?-That is all. In<br />
speaking about mustard a little while ago, probably I have ereated the impression in the mind <strong>of</strong> the Commission<br />
that we do not manufacture genuine mustard, but we also manufacture genuine, as well as the<br />
other qualities.<br />
'l'he witness vJitAclrew.<br />
Leonard Parsons,<br />
8th May l8B3.<br />
Leonard Parsons sworn and examined.<br />
49698. By the Clu:tvnnctn.-·where is your place <strong>of</strong> bnsines '?-Bomke-street.<br />
,!9699. How long has it been established ?~We have been in business about twenty years.<br />
49700. How many hands do you employ?-Thirty.<br />
49701. vve have a return here, twenty-five-is that correct?-Thirty now.<br />
49702. What are the principal lines that you manufacture ?-Oatmeal, rice, c<strong>of</strong>fee, I should like to<br />
speak <strong>of</strong>.<br />
49703. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness upon the question <strong>of</strong> oats and oatmeal, do<br />
you agree with that ?-I think we should have the duty <strong>of</strong>f oats altogether. We all have a bond, and<br />
manufacture under the su1Jervision <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>ficer, and I do not see why we should not be a.llowed to have all<br />
the oats free, because we cannot get oats in the colony suitable J'or oatmeal, or very few indeed. They are<br />
all full <strong>of</strong> blacks and tares, and when you get your porridge in the morning it is full <strong>of</strong> seeds and blacks,<br />
and there are rows every day. I approve <strong>of</strong> it in reference to starch and rice, and we .do not see why it<br />
cannot be done in oatmeal. ·<br />
.;;;. On revising his evidettce t11e witness desired to withdraw this answer rt~cl to substitute the word "JS\;."
1471<br />
49704. Approve <strong>of</strong> what ?-You take <strong>of</strong>f the duty from rice for the manufacture <strong>of</strong> starch, and I do Leomlr~Parsons,<br />
not see why oats cannot he in the same way. It will not hurt the farmer at all. Bt~~"~~sa.<br />
49705. A s.peciu,l clause in the Customs Act allows <strong>of</strong> the manufacture <strong>of</strong> rice into starch ; the Legislatiue<br />
has attempted to meet you by allowing the oatmeal m:.mufacturor to make in bond ; but I understand<br />
you to go further than that. Your reason for asking for a removal o£ the clnty i::; that the loeal supply <strong>of</strong> the<br />
kinds <strong>of</strong> oats suitable for your businesl:l does not come up to your demand ?--No, it does not.<br />
49706. That is the ground upou which you ask for it?-Y os.<br />
49707. Y on heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness upon the question <strong>of</strong> mustard-are you<br />
interested in that article '?-No, I do not understand mustard.<br />
49708. Do you understand rice-you are interested in that?-Yes.<br />
49709. Do you agree with his evidence upon that point ?-Not altogether. He is wrong about the<br />
amount it costs to dress in bond. The reason we get the concession made, 4s. against 6s., we have to pay<br />
freight and wharfage rates, and a variety <strong>of</strong> charges upon the raw rlce when it comes here, besides the<br />
dressing and all the bags and cart;uge, and no end <strong>of</strong> things. The difference <strong>of</strong> duty is fully the amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> £2.<br />
49710. The differential duty <strong>of</strong> £2 is absorbed in the expenses?-Yes; in the expenses from the time<br />
it leaves the port <strong>of</strong> shipment till the time we send it out it is quite that.<br />
49711. Have you anything else to add i11 relation to the article <strong>of</strong> rice '?-No, I think it woulcl be<br />
very wrong if it were altered.<br />
· 49712. You do not manufacture starch, do you ?-No.<br />
49713. C<strong>of</strong>fee is the next item. Will you tell us what you have to say about that ?-I think it is<br />
about time the duty upon c<strong>of</strong>fee was reduced. I do not see why there should be 3d. a pound upon c<strong>of</strong>fee; it<br />
is a great thing for the public; and it causes so much adulteration with chicory, and we grow so much<br />
chicory in the colony, to reduce the quality ; too much chicory is put in. I think if c<strong>of</strong>fee is allowed in,<br />
say, at a penny, you would get a much better article.<br />
49714. Adulteration with chicory is very largely carried on?-Yes, very largely.<br />
49715. Is it not possible for the public to protect themselves by buying the beans themselves?-Yes,<br />
you can do that; but it is the price; and then there is cocoa and all those things.<br />
49716. Yon propose the duty on c<strong>of</strong>fee to be reduced to a penny ?-I think it would be a good thing.<br />
49717. You import the beans, do you'?-Yes, we import the beans and grind them ourselves.<br />
49718. Is there the same duty upon the ground article?-Yes, 3cl. a pound upon everything.<br />
49719. Have you anything further to say ?-No, I have nothing further to say.<br />
49720. Are those the only items in your business that pay a clnty ?-There is bmley.<br />
49721. Do you manufacture pearl barley ?-Yes.<br />
49722. Are you satisfied with the duty upon that ?-Yes.<br />
49723. By Jh. Walker.-With reference to dressing rice in boncl, you state that in addition to the<br />
labour <strong>of</strong> putting it through the mill there is cartage upon it?-Yes, and freight ftnd charges at the port <strong>of</strong><br />
shipment to start with, and then there nre wharfage rates and cartage and re-bagging.<br />
49724. Are not nll those charges on undressed rice ?-Yes.<br />
49725. Then how does that put you to extra expense ?-The dressed rice, the labour is so much<br />
cheaper.<br />
49726. That is a different matter altogether ?-As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, cartage is upon both dressed and<br />
undressed rice-both have to be cartecl.<br />
49727. Then neither has an advantage over the other in tlmt ?-But then there is the 4 cwt. <strong>of</strong> pig<br />
feed.<br />
49728. What comes <strong>of</strong>f is what you do not pay duty upon ?-No, but we have to pay freight and<br />
charges upon it.<br />
49729. You sell it here as pig feed ?-Sometimes we get 2s. or 3s. a cwt.<br />
49730. When you do not get that clo you give it away ?-Sometimes next door to it.<br />
49731. At all ~vents what you get pays the freight?-Yes.<br />
49732. It comes here in bags, does not it ?-Yes, perhaps full <strong>of</strong> weevil, and we have to sell those<br />
bags that cost us 8d. to 9d. each, and buy new bags here that cost 3s. 6d. a dozen.<br />
49733. You buy new bags altogether <strong>of</strong> a different character thin bao-s.<br />
49734. You would make that change in any ease from the gunny bags to yo~r own bags '?-Yes.<br />
49735. So that all those charges are not necessa.rily connected with dressing in bond. That is, they<br />
apply to rice all round '?-I do not altogether see that. Dressed rice be sent down in 56 lb. bags.<br />
That is <strong>of</strong>ten done, and then no new bags are required.<br />
49736. Can you give us the actual cost <strong>of</strong> dressing rice in bond ?-The actmtl cost <strong>of</strong> dressing rice<br />
in bond varies.<br />
49737. Leaving everything else on one side, putting it through the mill ?-It would cost. a pound a<br />
ton really.<br />
49738. Mr. Parsons, have you ever dressed rice in bond for anybody else?-Yes.<br />
49739. Vllhat do you charge them ?-Various charges.<br />
49740. W1utt do you charge them ?-We have charg(3d as high as £2 a ton, and we have done one<br />
lot at 12s. 6d.<br />
49741. Why did you do that at 12s. 6d. ?-Simply because it was rnn through very light.<br />
49742. Then it is possible to run it through very light and yet get £2 from the Custom house?<br />
No, it is not possible now.<br />
49743. What stopped it ?-The Customs say that that is dressed rice, and they will not allow that<br />
stuff to go through now.<br />
49744. Then upon that occasion it wa.~ defrauding the Customs ?-I do not know that. The <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
said it was undressed; it is a matter <strong>of</strong> opinion. I say, if the rice has td go through the mill, it is undressed<br />
rice.<br />
49745. If it hns to go through ?-Yes.<br />
49746. "What do you mean by "If it luts to go through" ?-If the rice is not fit to send out, and<br />
people will not buy it, and consider it shonlcl go through the mill and be reduced.<br />
49747. And if it costs only 12s. 6d. a ton, you think you are justified in getting from the rev en ne<br />
40s. ?-No, I clo not think so at all-thnt was a very special thing.
.eonard Parsons,<br />
st~o~i~';'l'~~a.<br />
1<br />
C. W. Derbn.m,<br />
Sth 1\!ay 1883.<br />
1472<br />
49748. By Mr. Lobb.-With regard to oats, I understood you to say you had a very great difficulty<br />
in getting the oats you require to produce oatmeal here ?-Sometimes we cannot get them. .<br />
49749. What oats do you generally use ?-We generally use New Zealand, and pay the extra prlCe.<br />
49750. What kind do you call them ?-Potato or milling oats we call them. .<br />
49751. Do you use others ?-Sometimes we use <strong>Victoria</strong>ns when can get them clean, but we object<br />
to them strongly.<br />
49752. Do you ever use Tartarlan ?-No, there is too much bran about them.<br />
49753. You use New Zealand oats, why?-Because they are such a superior article. .<br />
49754. The oatmeal you sell to your customers-what do you make it from ?-New Zealand oats.<br />
49755. You pay duty upon them?-Yes, and have been doing for the last three months. They<br />
cannot grow them here.<br />
49756. Could not they be grown here ?-They can be if the farmers are more careful, but I have.<br />
never seen any <strong>Victoria</strong>n oats equal to New Zealand.<br />
49757. What price ttre they in the market ?-Three shillings and threepence and 3s. 4d. to-day.<br />
49758. What are New Zealand oats worth to-day ?-I suppose about 3s. 6d. with the duty.<br />
49759. That is a little more?-Yes.<br />
49760. Are they both <strong>of</strong> the same quality ?-No, the New Zealand oats are heavier and better and<br />
cleaner. There is no rubbish in them at all.<br />
49761. You are not like some gentlemen who gave evidence to-day, who used colonial oats for<br />
colonial consumption ?-Because they go in to save the price. We prefer the good quality, and let the<br />
people have some good porridge. .<br />
49762. By tlte Cltairman.-Have you anything further to add ?-No.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Charles W alter Derham sworn and examined.<br />
49763. By the Chai,rman ....-Are you a representative <strong>of</strong> the firm <strong>of</strong> Derham and Company ?-Yes.<br />
49764. Where is your place <strong>of</strong> business ?-In Queen-street.<br />
49765. How long have you been in business as a grain merchant ?-We have been in the present<br />
business only five months, but our predecessors, my brother and :Mr. Swallow, were in business for many<br />
years.<br />
49766. Have you been in the business previously ?-Yes.<br />
49767. Though not as the proprietor ?-Yes.<br />
49768. How many years have you been engaged in the business yourself?-! have been seventeen<br />
years altogether in the business ; that is, I was in the business seventeen years ago, and left it for a time, and<br />
came back about six years ago.<br />
49769. Do you confine your operations to any particular lines ?-We are flour and grain and sack<br />
merchants.<br />
49770. Under the heading <strong>of</strong> grain, what kinds <strong>of</strong> grain ?-All sorts <strong>of</strong> grain.<br />
49771. What do you wish to say to the Commission in relation to the duty upon flour, which is the<br />
first article-are you satisfied with the duty upon it ?-I do not think it would make much difference if it<br />
were removed ; I do not think the duty affects the price <strong>of</strong> flour here now, because we are exporters <strong>of</strong> flour ;<br />
but, <strong>of</strong> course, if there were a failure <strong>of</strong> crop, or something like that, it would affect the price ; only in that<br />
case.<br />
49772. Was not there a small import <strong>of</strong> flour or wheat just previous to the last harvest, through our<br />
having over-exported in the earlier months <strong>of</strong> the year ?-No, we did not.<br />
49773. Now come to the question <strong>of</strong> grain. Of course the same argument willl apply to wheat, will<br />
it not, as applies to flour ?-Yes. ·<br />
49774. Now, as to the question <strong>of</strong> oats, what have you say to the duty upon oats ?-I think it<br />
should be removed. ·<br />
49775. What effect would it have upon your business as a grain merchant if it were removed ?-It<br />
would improve our business.<br />
49776. Have you any business in colonial oats-is there any business for the importers or merchants<br />
between the growers and those who manipulate it ?-We have agents in all parts <strong>of</strong> the colony to buy grain<br />
for us, including oats, and likewise to consign to us on the part <strong>of</strong> the farmers for us to sell on commission<br />
on his account.<br />
49n7. Do you think you would do more business <strong>of</strong> that sort if oats were imported ?-I think so.<br />
49778. More business with the people. in the country here ?-That would be a question; I do not<br />
know about that. I believe our business would increase.<br />
49779. You would do more import business, you believe, but it would interfere with your internal<br />
business ?-No, it would not interfere with our internal business; the man who gives the highest price to<br />
the farmer gets the goods, and we should be prepared to do that.<br />
49780. Would there not be a chance <strong>of</strong> the farmer shortening his crop <strong>of</strong> oats through competition<br />
with the imported ?-He might.<br />
49781. Then your business with oat growers in this colony would be so much curtailed, would it not 1<br />
-I do not think we grow sufficient oats for our own use here.<br />
49782. We do not yet ?-No.<br />
49783. And if you lose the duty, is there not a probability that we shall grow less ?-I think there<br />
is ; but it would go into something else, such as barley or wheat, which would be more pr<strong>of</strong>itable.<br />
49784. As to wheat, we a long time ago reached the limit <strong>of</strong> our own supply and are exporting.<br />
The farmer wonlcl not get a better price for his wheat, however much he grew. It pays the farmer better to<br />
grow oats now, which have not yet reached the exporting point, consequently the duty gives some advantage<br />
till it does reach that price. Do you think that if you removed the dnty upon oats, the farmer would produce<br />
wheat, which is already over-supplied ?-It is not over-supplied ; we supply more than our own want
1473<br />
49786. Oats have not yet reached that stage, have they ?-No.<br />
49787. Consequently we may assume that the farmer does get the benefit <strong>of</strong> the duty upon oats to<br />
some extent, does he not '?-He gets the benefit <strong>of</strong> the duty, but he has to pay it in ocher ways.<br />
49788. In what other ?-In the other duties he has to pay.<br />
49789. That is another altogether. I want to get at now. ii'I<br />
your business would be improved br removing the dnty from oacs ?-IIz:cau:;e l l "' · ·<br />
and we should have a larger quantity to bundle.<br />
49790. You think you wouhl do a larger business, but it would be mol·e in importee[ oats than in<br />
home-grown oats I could not actually say that. 1 believe our business would be large'!', because we<br />
should have both.<br />
49791. Now, as to the question <strong>of</strong> barley, what have you to say about the duty upon that ?-I think<br />
the barley duty shouid be removed.<br />
49792. On what ground ?-Because I do not think we grow more barley than we actually want for<br />
our own use.<br />
49793. We do not grow so much ?-It is ::tbout ; opinions differ as to that, but it is said to<br />
be about enough ; the erop this year is said to be enough.<br />
49794. If it were all <strong>of</strong> suitable kinds, I suppose, and kept here for particular purposefJ ?-Yes.<br />
49795. Would there be any harm done to the grain merchants or the farmers if we allowed this<br />
question <strong>of</strong> removing the duty upon barley to wait for a year or two, until the supply <strong>of</strong> barley had reached<br />
the same positiem that the supply <strong>of</strong> wheat has done-till the time when our farmers have grown BO much<br />
barley that there will be no question about having a surplus for export ?-I would not like to say exactly as<br />
to that ; I do not know.<br />
49796. Do you deal in malt? -No.<br />
'±9797. Any other article that you deal in do you wish to speak about ?-No, I have no remarks to<br />
make.<br />
49798. How about the duty upon maize? -I think the mttize duty Bhonld he removed.<br />
49799. HEtVe you any knowledge <strong>of</strong> the qualities <strong>of</strong> maize ?-I can tell good maize if I see it ; I have<br />
a certain knowledge.<br />
49800 . .Have you had any experience in the different kinds <strong>of</strong> maize-our <strong>Victoria</strong>n nmize, and<br />
New South Wales maize, and Queensland m~tize; can you BlJGak as to the different qualities <strong>of</strong> those<br />
different kinds <strong>of</strong> grain for feed purposes ?-Yes, I think so.<br />
49801. Which is the best quality <strong>of</strong> the tlnee ?-The Queensland and the New South Wales maize<br />
are about the same, ttncl they are better than our own maize.<br />
49802. Are you comparing it with the maize grown in Gippsland ?-Yes.<br />
49803. In what respects is the imported or foreign maize better than our own say that it is<br />
easier crushed. ·<br />
49804. You have no personal experience in that?-\Ve do not crush, we are merely the first hands.<br />
'i9805. You have no knowledge <strong>of</strong> their relative qualities yourself ?-I have no actual practical<br />
knowledge myself. I have only the knowledge that I learn from my customers.<br />
49806. Which fetches the higher price ?-Last year, I think, they were somewhere about the same ;<br />
but in previous years the 90 days maize-that is the Gippsland m~tize-used to fetch rather more than the<br />
imported article, because it was used for seed or something <strong>of</strong> that kind ; but a very small quantity was<br />
grown.<br />
49807. Would not that argue that it was better th2,n the imported rather than worse?-No, because<br />
when it commenced to be largely grown it dropped beneath the imported maize.<br />
49808. It was bought for seed because <strong>of</strong> its peculiar character then 7-Yes.<br />
49809. Have you anything further to !Kld ?-No, I do not wish to say anything further.<br />
49810. By Mr. ilfclntyre.-As a merchant, do you deal in imported gTain ?-Yes.<br />
49811. What is the price <strong>of</strong> the imported article iu oats at present as compared with the colonial?-<br />
Oats in bond are worth 2s. 6d. and 2s. 7cl. or perhaps 2s. 8d. per bushel to-clay.<br />
49812. And the local article ?-3s. 4d.<br />
49813. Then, if the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f, would the local article sell cheaper ?-Certainly it would.<br />
49814. Then the farmer wouhl suffer to that extent ?-Yes, he would.<br />
49815. There is a difference then <strong>of</strong> lOLl. a bushel at present between the bonded article and the<br />
local article ?-Yes, very nearly 10d.<br />
49816. Is the local article as good as the imported ?-:No, it is not.<br />
49817. Then the community is suffering to th&t extent--the general consumer suffers to that extent<br />
and gets an inferior article ?-Yes, I agree with the gentleman who went before me to that extent.<br />
49818. The importation <strong>of</strong> oats has very largely fttllen <strong>of</strong>f?-Yes, to some extent certainly it has.<br />
49819. Yon think the farruers could turn their attention to producing articles more suitable to the<br />
soil than oats, as this reduction took place ?-I know nothing about farming, but my partner, Mr. Kyd,<br />
expresses that opinion, and other farmers I have heard say that it is not an oat-growing country. You<br />
cannot grow oats here as you can in New Zealand.<br />
49820. By the Hon. 1111'. Lori·mer.-Supposing the duties c::tnnot be repe~led, would a reduction to<br />
1s. a cental give you greater f::tcilities ?·-I think it would.<br />
49821. Sixpence a bushel ?-Yes, ls. a cental would be ,'5d. a bushel.<br />
49822. Then you would prefer going back to the olcl duty ?-I would prefer its entire removal.<br />
49823. And if you cannot get the entire removt~l you would have a reLluction ?-Yes, whatever you<br />
can. I should say that we deal largely in corn sacks ::mcl bran bags and all kinds <strong>of</strong> sacks, so perhaps you<br />
may want to ask me a question in relation to that.<br />
49824. What do you recommend in relation to that ?-The removal <strong>of</strong> the duty.<br />
49825. Would the public get the advantage <strong>of</strong> that ?-The farmers would <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
49826. The farmer would get the advantage <strong>of</strong> the removal <strong>of</strong> tlie duty?-Yes, I think so.<br />
49827. HaYe you any experience <strong>of</strong> the market in sacks for the last few years ?-Yes, for a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> years.<br />
49828. Has not the establishment <strong>of</strong> the manufactlU'e here had the effect <strong>of</strong> steadying the market,<br />
as it is termed, in relation to this matter ?-I do not think the local factory has ha~l the slightest effect upon<br />
the market. 'I'he marlwt has had an effect upon the local factory, I think.<br />
TARIFF.<br />
9 A<br />
c. W. Del'lHtm,<br />
continued,<br />
Sth ll:Iay 1883.
c, w. Derbam,<br />
contmued,<br />
8th May 1883.<br />
Ronu.Jd Robb,<br />
lltb May 1883,<br />
1474<br />
49829. By Jlfr. Lobb.-Do I understand you to say that the <strong>Victoria</strong>n climate is not suited to the<br />
growth <strong>of</strong> oats ?-Of course I am only repeating what I have heard. 1 have heard it, not from any one<br />
person in particular, but from several persons.<br />
·19830. I say that we can grow as good oats as any country in the world ?-In some parts no doubt<br />
it eau be done.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Ronald Robb sworn aud examined.<br />
49831. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-A trader.<br />
49832. And importer <strong>of</strong> grain ?-Not particularly; I am more particul::wly in trade, buying and<br />
selling ; occasionally I import.<br />
49833. You are a dealer in grain?-Yes.<br />
49834. Where is your place <strong>of</strong> business ?-Flinders-street.<br />
49835. How long have you been in the business ?-About seventeen years in Melbourne ancl<br />
suburbs.<br />
49836. You have hea-rd the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness in relation to the duty upon the various<br />
grains-do you desire to add :1nything to tha.t evidence, or to contradict it in any way ?-There is nothing<br />
I can contradict so far. I perfectly agree with his evidence so far that the duties ought to be entirely<br />
removed from all grain and bags. ·<br />
49837. You used the words "so far ''-clo you go farther than he does ?-In reply to a question<br />
from the Hon. Mr. Lorimer, he said he would approve <strong>of</strong> the duty being reduced upon oats ; now I<br />
think that the duty upon all grain ought to be entirely removed in this country.<br />
49838. He said so too; he said if we cannot take it <strong>of</strong>f entirely, a reduction would be advantageous?<br />
-Yes, I agree with that.<br />
49839. Have you anything to add to his evidence that he omitted to state ?-I have had a great<br />
deal <strong>of</strong> experience in the trade, and I know the working <strong>of</strong> it. I know that the duty upon oats is<br />
hampering the Melbourne trade entirely. :For instance, Queensland buyers go now to the Sydney<br />
market. Oats are sent direct from New Zealand now in large quantities to Sydney, instead <strong>of</strong> coming<br />
to Melbourne. The Queensland buyers go there and buy, because in sending oats from New Zealand to<br />
Sydney the consignor knows that he has not to pay the duties. If he cannot sell the oats for transhipment<br />
in Sydney, he can sell them in Syclney without having to pay duty. Therefore the consumer in<br />
Sydney gets oats at a much less price than the consmner in Melbourne does, and, >ts a representative<br />
<strong>of</strong> the consumer, I say it is taking it out <strong>of</strong> his pocket and putting it into the pocket <strong>of</strong> some one<br />
else.<br />
49840. Now, not speaking as a representative <strong>of</strong> the consumers, but simply as a dealer, will you<br />
explain to the Commission what injury is done to Melbourne and :Melbourne dealers by this business being<br />
done in Sydney instead <strong>of</strong> Melbourne ?-We do not get the handling <strong>of</strong> it here; the ships are laid on direct<br />
to Sydnfly. and it does not come here.<br />
49841. Are the ships Melbourne or Sydney ships ?-They may be either, it makes no difference; a<br />
ship will go wherever the trade is.<br />
49842. But is the trade carried on in Sydney ships or Melbourne ships ?-The "Union Steamship<br />
Company has now gone to New Zealand; it will eventually leave Melbourne altogether, I think.<br />
49843. Then it is a New Zealand company that carries it ?~It was a Melbourne firm, the firm<br />
<strong>of</strong> McMeckan, Blackwood, and Company; but on account <strong>of</strong> these duties and one thing and another, it has<br />
entirely taken it out <strong>of</strong> the hands <strong>of</strong> the Melbourne shipowners.<br />
49844. The Melbourne port loses the duties ?-The Melbourne port loses the duties, and the<br />
Melbourne dealer loses the pr<strong>of</strong>its.<br />
49845. And the Melboi1rne workman loses the wages <strong>of</strong> handling ?-Yes. I may state a fact that<br />
happened this week. A gentleman from Brisbane asked me the price <strong>of</strong> oats; I gave him a quotation for ·<br />
oats in bond. He told me he could buy them cheaper in Sydney; therefore he saves the freight from here<br />
to Sydney, and buys a penny cheaper in Sydney than here; and I used to trade with him, but Sydney has<br />
cut me entirely out <strong>of</strong> the market.<br />
'<br />
49846. Have you anything to add ?-I think the duty upon bags is entirely unnecessary.<br />
49847. There is the same duty upon bags in Sydney; that does not affect you as to the Sydney<br />
market; so if the duty upon bags were removed, it would give you a pull against Sydney, would it not, in<br />
that item ?-I do not see that it would make much difference.<br />
49848. If it makes a difference against you when the cluty is on, it must make the same difference .<br />
in your favour if it is <strong>of</strong>f ?~I think there ought to be a rebate or refund <strong>of</strong> the duty upon bags when<br />
exported with the grain. Upon the other goods there is a drawback ; why should there not be upon the<br />
bags when they are tilled? In that case it would benefit the farmers and every one. The only one who<br />
has to pay through the nose for it is the <strong>Victoria</strong>n consumer; he pays clearer.<br />
49849. Have you anything further to say ?-No.<br />
498.50. By l'rb-. Lobb.-Are you in favour <strong>of</strong> a Custom-house ?-If it could be clone without, certainly<br />
uot.<br />
49851. I understood you to say that all the protection <strong>of</strong> the farmers, the duty, should be taken <strong>of</strong>f?<br />
-Yes, if bags and implements were free.<br />
49852. Would you not go a little further and do away with the Custom-house altogether ?-If<br />
possible, I would. I may state that I deal a great deal with the farmers, and I think the general feeling<br />
amongst them is that, if the duties upon agricultural machinery and other things were removed, they would<br />
be quite satisfied to concede the question <strong>of</strong> grain. It is merely because they feel that they are handicapped<br />
so heavily with other duties. And there was another question with regard to South Australia, and the<br />
reason why South Australia can or did produce cheaper was because the agricultural machinery can be<br />
bol1ght at a mucille8s price than ours. It is not altogether a question <strong>of</strong> cost, for I think that labour in<br />
South Australia and hero is about equal, while the reason tl1at produce is a less price is that they can<br />
buy agricultural implements for a less price.<br />
49853. By tile Cltairman.-In making that statement, are you speaking from your own knowledge,<br />
or just giving t\5 the experienc
1475<br />
49854. Will you give us a case in point <strong>of</strong> the coBt <strong>of</strong> agricultural implements here making the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> production so much larger ?-I have seen the difference in the duties, and the matter has been<br />
discussed so fully in the papers, and the amount <strong>of</strong> differsnce in the duties stated.<br />
49855. I do not ask about newsp!tper discussion ; I ask you for a cuse in point. You say you speak<br />
from your own ei.perience in muking that statement. Cn.n you give the Commission a case in poiut in<br />
which machinery is so much enhanced in price by the dnties that it makes the cost <strong>of</strong> the grain grown, by<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> that machinery, so great that we cannot compete with other colonies ?-No, I cannot give a case;<br />
it is merely a matter <strong>of</strong> opinion as a trader.<br />
49856. By M~·. Lohb.-There are many other things beside machinery that are enhanced?<br />
Everything all round; leave the farmer free, and he can grow as cheap as any one else.<br />
The witness withdre~o.<br />
49857.<br />
49858.<br />
49859.<br />
49860.<br />
49861.<br />
give ?-Yes.<br />
removed.<br />
George Nipper sworn and examined.<br />
By the Chairman.-Are you <strong>of</strong> the :firm <strong>of</strong> Nipper and See ?-Yes.<br />
You are an importer <strong>of</strong> grain ?-Importer and exporter.<br />
How long have you been iu this business ?-Nineteen years.<br />
You have heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witnesses ?-Yes.<br />
Will you state as briefly as you can to the Commission the additional evidence you wish to<br />
I would propose that either the whole or the greater proportion <strong>of</strong> the duty upon maize be<br />
49862. Then you agree with the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Derham in relation to that ?-Yes.<br />
49863. Is it the only item you wish to refer to ?-And also oats.<br />
49864. You agree with all the others upon that and wheat also.<br />
49865. Then I understand you to agree with the evidence given by the previous witnesses in relation<br />
to the removal <strong>of</strong> those duties?-Yes.<br />
49866. Have you got anything additional to say that they left unsaid ?-No.<br />
49867. By the Hon. Mr. Lorimer.-You are something more than an importer a.nd exporter <strong>of</strong> grain,<br />
are you not ?-Yes.<br />
49868. What are you ?-I am a steamship owner, and I have other vessels; in fact I am what<br />
might be called a general merchant, I suppose.<br />
49869. Do you suppose that your business as a steamboat proprietor has been diminished by this<br />
duty upon oats?-Yes, very much so.<br />
49870. You .would be able to do a larger trade if it were taken <strong>of</strong>f?-Yes, and a more pr<strong>of</strong>itable<br />
trade. I am not quite altogether selfish in the matter ; I have a considerable feeling for the cabmeu. Last<br />
year, maize being so clear, we could harilly import any maize at all, while we used to import 100,000 bags<br />
a year.<br />
49871. Is it not a fact that the steamboat owners <strong>of</strong> Melbourne are very much hampered by these<br />
duties ?-Yes, very much so. It makes very little difference, I think, now to the farmers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> in<br />
reference to importing wheat here.<br />
49872. By the Chairman.-Have you been long engaged in the shipping business ?-We have eleven<br />
vessels. We commencecl buying vessels about seventeen years ago, and we increased from one np to<br />
eleven, and then we commenced to sell our vessels and went into steam. We have been into steam, I<br />
suppose, eight years, aml up to the present time we have eleven, small and large. I think we have only<br />
two :vessels left.<br />
49873. Yoll saicl to the Hon. Mr. Lorimer that your business had diminished ?-The grain business.<br />
49874. But he specially asked about your business as a steam-vessel proprietor, which you said had<br />
diminished ?-Then I mistook Mr. Lorimer as to my business dirninishing.<br />
49875. Your business as a steam-vessel proprietor has increased ?-I bought steamers to work my<br />
business. ·<br />
49876. And yonr business in that line has gone on increasing ?-Yes, my business in that line has<br />
gone on increasing.<br />
49877. Notwithstanding the duties ?-Notwithstanding the duties.<br />
49878. So the duties clid not make your business decrease ?-No; but taking the duty <strong>of</strong>f would<br />
increase my business very much more, and that is how I understood Mr. Lorimer to ask me.<br />
49879. Now I understand the matter clearly, that your business absolutely has increased, notwithstanding<br />
the duties ?-I have seven or eight businesses altogether; this is not my principal place; Sydney<br />
is my head <strong>of</strong>fice ; this is only a bmnch <strong>of</strong> my business. I have another in V{ arrm,mbool, another at<br />
Belfast, and we have four in New South Wales.<br />
49880. But I understand thn.t, notwithstanding the increase you have, you are under the impression<br />
that the abolition <strong>of</strong> the duties would increase it still more?-Yes; we have only one steamer running here,<br />
and it is a great dea.l through the increased duties all the other steamers run to New South Wales, and all<br />
our business seems to be going there. I am not paying expenses here, as far as my business is coneerned,<br />
and it is all through the hen.vy duties. I .used to import 100,000 bags <strong>of</strong> maize here, and now I clo. not<br />
import 10,000.<br />
49881. By !Jfr. ~'VIclntyre.-That is your experience as a shipowner-that the shipping business is<br />
all being drawn away from Melbourne ?-Yes.<br />
The ~oit1wss ~oithdrew.<br />
Ronn.ld Rohb,<br />
continued,<br />
8th May 1883.<br />
George Nipper,<br />
8th May I 683..<br />
J ames Lowry Irving sworn and examined.<br />
49882. By the Cltaimwn.-Wbat are you ?-I am a gmin merchant. .<br />
49883. Have you been long in business ?-Twenty-five years.'<br />
49884. You hoxe heard theevideuce <strong>of</strong> previous witnesses in this business ?-Yes.<br />
49885. Do you desire to controvert that evidence in any respect ?-Not altogether controvert it;<br />
but I have an idea that it is not protection we are hn.ving, it is prohibition at the present time.<br />
.r. L. Irvlng,<br />
8tll May 1883,
J ~ L. Irving 1<br />
conti:nved.<br />
·8th May 1883,<br />
C. G. Turner,<br />
8th May 1883.<br />
1476<br />
49886. 1V e do not want to go into a discussion upon politics; we want to keep to facts if we can.<br />
Do you disagree with the evidence that previous witnesses have given ?-Not altogether.<br />
49887. In what respect do you disagree with them ?-I think we are not prepared to sweep away<br />
all our Customs duties at present. Of course a revenue must be collected. ·<br />
· 49888. You do not agree with their evidence so far.as the total abolition <strong>of</strong> the grain duties goes?<br />
No, not altogether.<br />
49889. What do you recommend in place <strong>of</strong> it ?-I recommend the duties upon oats and barley to<br />
be reduced and maize to be reduced one-half.<br />
49890. What about wheat?-·wheat, I do not see that it is any use at all, it is a hindrance.<br />
49891. You agree with them about wheat ?-Yes, it is a hindrance.<br />
49892. What else do you wish to say ?--Pulse and bran, that ought to be swept away altogether<br />
too.<br />
None is coming here, and the duty is very high.<br />
49893. Take the duty away altogether?-Certainly.<br />
49894. What else ?-The reason, I say, wheat we fire now ex1Jorting, wheat and flour, both to a<br />
large extent, and the injury that the duty upon the wheat does is that we cannot get a change <strong>of</strong> seed into<br />
this colony; it always is desirable for a farming community to change their seed from one climate to another,<br />
so as to produce a better sample and better crops.<br />
49895. You agree with the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Gibson ?-Cmtainly I do, as I have orders for wheat<br />
and oats from New Zealand, but the excessive duty has prevented my bringing thel'n into the market except<br />
at an excessive price.<br />
49896. Is there any other point you wish to refer to ?-I do not know <strong>of</strong> anything else.<br />
The witness VYithcl!rev;.<br />
Chal'les George Turner sworn and examined.<br />
49897. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-Grain merchant.<br />
49898. How long have you been in the business ?-About twelve years.<br />
49899. Will you state to the Commission, please, what you wish to add to the evidence <strong>of</strong> the<br />
previous witnesses ?-I particularly wish to refer to the duty upon bran and pollard. I should prefer to<br />
see it swept away altogether ; I do not see any reason for it at all.<br />
49900. You propose the abolition <strong>of</strong> the duty upon bran and·pollard ?-Yes.<br />
49901. That, I think, was the evidence o.f the biscuit manufacturers, was not it?-Yes, I think it<br />
was, and mostly bran runs very scarce here at times; there i.s not sufficient produced here.<br />
49902. In consequence <strong>of</strong> the very fine dressed flour, and it does not leave much ?-The millers<br />
do not produce snfficient brn.n and pollard, and occasionally it becomes very high in price, and the duty<br />
being very high, something like 5d. a bnshel, we cannot get it in.<br />
49903. Do you produce bran and pollard at all, or do you simply deal ~nit '?-We simply deal in it.<br />
I think the duty upon wheat and flour should be swept awa,y, as it is simply useless, and I do not see why<br />
the millers should be protected by a duty upon bran and pollard. It is not necessary to them, and it<br />
makes things much clearer. ·<br />
4990,1. Is there anything else?-With regard to the duties upon grain, I should be inclined to go<br />
back to the old tariff rather than take it <strong>of</strong>f altogether, that is a shilling a cental upon oats and barley and<br />
6d. upon maize. I do not think it would be a good thing to sweep away the duties altogether.<br />
49905. You agree with 1\fr. Irving that it would be better to halve the duties upon oats, barley, and<br />
maize<br />
I think we shall soon be able to grow sufficient oats and barley for ourselves.<br />
49906. Looked at in that light, would it not be better to keep them two years longer, and sweep<br />
them away with the rest ?-No, I think not.<br />
49907. \Vhy ?-I think it would be easier for the farmer. He could easily give us half the duty.<br />
49908. But as soon as the farmers produce sufficient to supply our wants the thing rights itself?<br />
But oats is not like wheat; you will never get to the position you are in with wheat that you can be always<br />
exporters. Some years you may export, and some years you would have to import. I thinl< the farmer has<br />
so far had it all his own way with the 2s. duty, and now he ought to give the consumer a little show; and<br />
the same with maize; the maize duty ha,s been a very heavy taxation upon the cabmen and wharfmen.<br />
49909. As a mere dealer in the article, it wcmld make no difference to you, would it ?-It would<br />
make a difference. We should do a much .larger business i:l' there were no duties.<br />
49910. More export business ?-J'r1ore export business. Thn.t is where it troubles llS.<br />
49911. vYould it tend to make Melbourne more and more the centre <strong>of</strong> the grain trade <strong>of</strong> the colonies?<br />
~I think so, decidedly.<br />
49912. W oulcl it help to get back the steam trade business, which, we are told, has altogether<br />
forsaken us, thongh we see EO many at the wharf ?-I think it would, and it would certainly bring more<br />
trafii.c here; fOT instance, the ·whole produce <strong>of</strong> the north coast <strong>of</strong> Tt1Sl.llania, if there were no duties, would<br />
come here. .A.t P'·'e:~mlt it goes to Sydney or wherever can sell it, but it never comes here.<br />
the Hon. Jlfr. Lo?'imer.--You W2vnt to go back to the 1877 tariff ?-Yes.<br />
49914. w:1s 6d. a cental on maize then ?--Yes.<br />
49915. Do you think you wm1ld have a duty upon maize at all ?-I think you ought to have a duty<br />
upon maize, or you would have o::tts such a miserable by competition with maize.<br />
49916. What would the oat grower here do would go into wheat growing.<br />
49917. Would he be any the worse at that?-I cannot say.<br />
49918. Do you think it pays as well to grow oats and barley as wheat '?-Some men it does ; it<br />
depends upon the climate and the soil.<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>itable.<br />
For instance, at Lancefield you could not grow wheat to be<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Edward Vale,<br />
8th May 1885.<br />
Edward Vale sworn and examined.<br />
49919. B,y the Chairman.-What are you ?-Cab proprietor.<br />
49920. You are a delegate this afternoon from the Cabmen's Union ?-Yes.<br />
49921. How many cabmen belong to that union ?-About 700.
1417<br />
49922. What pTopoTtion does that beaT to the number in :Melbourne and suburbs ?-I suppose that<br />
is to say not cab proprietoTs ?<br />
49923. Does any one belong to the union beside cab proprietors ?-Yes, drivers belong to the union;<br />
there are 942 cabowners. ·<br />
49924. And how many drivers ?-I could not say. I should think perhaps 1,000 drivers. I am told<br />
there are I, 700 and oclu.<br />
49925. That is 2,600 altogether ?-Yes.<br />
49926. ~L\.nd in the union there are how many ?-Seven hundred and sixty-four.<br />
49927. You were appointed at an ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the union ?-I have received a letter. I was<br />
chairman <strong>of</strong> the union at the time I waited as a deputation upon you, and through that I received this notice<br />
from the Commission.<br />
49928. Then you had not been appointed by the union to come here ?-No, I could not be, for this was<br />
only sent last night, and I am here to-day, so no appointment from any person could have taken place. I was<br />
appointed formerly, months ago.<br />
49929. Y on were appointed by the union some months ago?-Ye11.<br />
49930. And only got your notice to attend last night?-Yes.<br />
49931. When you were appointed, was it an ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the union ?-Yes, I was chairman <strong>of</strong><br />
the meeting.<br />
49932. So when you speak here to-clay you give the views <strong>of</strong> the union upon the question?-Yes.<br />
49933. What have you to say as a representative <strong>of</strong> the union upon the duty upon grain ?-As far as<br />
the union ancl the whole body <strong>of</strong> cabs is concern!3d, the duty upon grain is very oppressive to us, inasmuch as<br />
we are a body <strong>of</strong> men that are very heavily taxed by the corporations.<br />
49934. Do not go into that, we have nothing to do with it here ?-I only want to point out to you where<br />
it falls heavily upon us. Upon bakers, butchers, and grocers, and those people that purchase their commodity<br />
from merchants, it does not press so heavily, because they can raise their commodities according to the price <strong>of</strong><br />
the market. Now, we as a body <strong>of</strong> men, cannot raise our fares.<br />
49935. Let me ask can a baker raise the price o:i' his loaf if his horse feed is higher ?-Yes, be<br />
can.<br />
49936. No, surely he cannot?-Yes, <strong>of</strong> course it is a question <strong>of</strong> supply and demand.<br />
4:9937. the :flour out <strong>of</strong> which he makes his bread rises in price, then he can mise the price <strong>of</strong><br />
bread ?-Yes, certainly, that is what I am stating, that is his commodity.<br />
'<br />
49938. You keep your horse to do your business with, do not you ?-Yes.<br />
4:9939. And the baker keeps a horse to do his business, does not be?-Yes.<br />
49940. If the price <strong>of</strong> horw feed rises and the baker has to pay a few shillings a week more for the<br />
feed <strong>of</strong> his horse, he does not raise the price <strong>of</strong> his loaf because <strong>of</strong> that, does he ?-No, I suppose not.<br />
49941. If the price <strong>of</strong> flour rises ?-Then he rises; but if the price <strong>of</strong> horse feed rises, we cannot rise<br />
our fares.<br />
49942. Neither can he rise the price <strong>of</strong> his bread ?-He might, or he might not. I think he might;<br />
but we cannot increase, because by law we are only allowed to charge a certain fare. For instance, if flour<br />
is £20 a ton in the market, a baker can raise his loaf in proportion; but if maize goes up 10s. a bushel, the<br />
cabman cannot raise his fare, be is tied clown by law. We, as a body <strong>of</strong> men, do not go in for the wholesale<br />
taking <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> all duties right <strong>of</strong>f from maize, we wish the farmer to live as well as the cabman; but we consider<br />
that paying 2s. a cen~al on maize is too much, for tl1e farmer cannot produce it here in sufficient<br />
quantity to give to the cabman if he wanted it.<br />
49943. 1Vhat do you propose-a reduction to one-half ?-A reduction to one-half or the whole <strong>of</strong><br />
the duty taken <strong>of</strong>f maize, because maize is a thing that cannot he well produced here except in Gippsland,<br />
and the Gippsland maize is <strong>of</strong> not so good a quality as the Sydney maize, and it is not so hard or so meally<br />
in substance.<br />
49944. And the duty upon oats should be reduced the same ?-Certainly; only the duty upon maize<br />
might be taken <strong>of</strong>f entirely, and still keep the duty upon oats. I cannot see why the farmer asks for a duty<br />
upon ma1ze whrm he cannot produce the article here. ·<br />
49945. That raises the whole question. They say that they can ?~All I can say is that they do<br />
not. I am as strong a protectionist as ::\fr. Mirams is, but I cannot deal in inconsistencies at any time. I<br />
do not think that things that cannot be produced here we should pay over our noses for.<br />
49946. Your evidence is that you wish the duty upon oats to be reduced one-half, and the duty upon<br />
maize to be reduced the whole if possible, and, if not, you will be satisfied with half being taken <strong>of</strong>f?-We<br />
shall be satisfied with anything we can get.<br />
49947. Anything further to aucl ?-Nothing further than we are heavily taxed.<br />
49948. And when oats rise in the market can you tell me what difference it makes in the weekly<br />
expenditure <strong>of</strong> a cabman who has a cab and only two horses ?~That depends upon the price <strong>of</strong> the article.<br />
We were paying 7s. 6d. for maize last year, and now it is 4s. 6c1.<br />
49949. How many bushels do you require for two horses in a week ?-At least six bushels.<br />
49950. ~L\.ncl if the duty is ls. a bushel, that is equivalent to 6s. a week?-Yes.<br />
49951. Do you prefer maize to oats for feed?-Yes, in winter time; and I most certainly concur with<br />
a gentleman who gave evidence here upon .Kew Zealand oats, that the New Zealand oats are far superior to<br />
the <strong>Victoria</strong>n oats. .<br />
49952. Even for feeding purposes ?-Even for feeding purposes, as well as for milling purposes ; if<br />
the substance is in the oat, it is as good for the horse aa it is for the miller to take it out and make it into<br />
meal, because the fattening and strengthening substance certainly must be in the meal.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Edward Vale,<br />
continutd,<br />
8\llliiD.;ylS&:l.<br />
William Harris sworn and examined:.<br />
49953. By tl
Willln.m Hnrrls,<br />
. · CiJnli:JJ/Ued;··<br />
8! h May 1883,<br />
1478<br />
oats should be 6d. a cental, inasmuch as experience has taught us that <strong>Victoria</strong> cannot produce a supply<br />
equal to the demand, not only in quantity but quality, for any person acquainted with feeding grains will<br />
not buy <strong>Victoria</strong>n oats if he can get New Zealand oats; and I think, if possible, the bnrthen should be<br />
removed from us.<br />
49956. I understand that to be the same evidence that Mr. Vale gave ?-'-No, he went to a shilling.<br />
I would put on 6d. merely for revenue purposes.<br />
1lfr. Vale.-I said halve the duty upon oats and take o:!f the maize duty altogether.<br />
The Witness.-Much has been said about Gippslancl as a maize-growing country. Opportunities<br />
have been afforded them to grow maize and there is very little maize comes from Gippsland; very little, so<br />
little that it is only a farce. The consumer has got to pay for it merely as a luxury.<br />
49957. Have you anything further to add ?-Nothing further.<br />
The witnf3ss withdrew .<br />
.Adjourned to to-morrow, at Two o'clock.<br />
('<br />
Charles DrapEr,<br />
9th May I88o,<br />
WEDNESDAY, 9TH MAY, 1883.<br />
Present:<br />
.J. MoiNTYRE, Esq., M.L.A., in the Chair;<br />
J. Bosisto, Esq., M.L.A., W. M. Cook, Esq.,<br />
W. J. Lobb, Esq., Hon. J. Lorimer, M.L.C.,<br />
D. Munro, Esq., J. Mirams, Esq., M.L.A.<br />
F. Longmore, Esq.,<br />
Charles Draper sworn and examined.<br />
49958. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-A fruit grower and farmer.<br />
49959. Where is your place situated ?-About four miles east <strong>of</strong> Yan Yean.<br />
49960. How far from Melbourne ?-26 miles.<br />
49961. What area <strong>of</strong> land have you got under cultivation ?-I suppose 130 acres in fruit trees. I<br />
have about 1,000 acres <strong>of</strong> land altogether.<br />
49962. How long is it since you started fruit growing ?-It is about nineteen years since I first<br />
began.<br />
49963. And gradually you increased your operations from that time to now?-Yes.<br />
49964. What kind <strong>of</strong> fruit do you grow ?-Chiefly apples and plums, and pears also; but chiefl<br />
apples and peaches.<br />
49965. What do you turn your fruit to, in the way <strong>of</strong> a market---do you sell it as fruit or to make<br />
cider, or reduce it in any way ?--No, I send it into Melbourne market. We use a little <strong>of</strong> the refuse fruit<br />
for cider.<br />
49966. You do make some cicler?-We have made a little.<br />
49967. The good fruit you send all to market ?-Yes.<br />
49968. And the rest you make into cider ?-No; we feed cattle and pigs with it when it is<br />
cheap.<br />
49969. You cannot dispose <strong>of</strong> it all in the Melbourne market?-Yes, all the good fmit.<br />
49970. What is your object in coming before the Commission to-day, what evidence clo you wish to<br />
give upon the system <strong>of</strong> taxation <strong>of</strong> the country-does it affect your industry in any way ?-Yes, it would<br />
do if we lose the duty <strong>of</strong> 9c1. a bushel upon apples.<br />
49971. How long has this 9cl. duty been on ?-I am sure I cannot say ; I think it is about eight or<br />
ten years.<br />
49972. In 1867 the duty upon fruit <strong>of</strong> all kinds was 5d. What proportion would that bear to the<br />
value <strong>of</strong> the article. What is the value <strong>of</strong> a bushel <strong>of</strong> apples at present ?-At present, the best <strong>Victoria</strong>n<br />
apples sell at 6s. 6d.<br />
49973. Then 5 per cent. upon that would be about l;td.-hardly that---would that suit you ?-It<br />
would not suit at all. You see, when apples were low, we could not cart them in at 5 per cent., it would<br />
knock us on the head altogether.<br />
49974. What extent <strong>of</strong> ground had you in cnltivation for fruit purposes when the duty was 5 per<br />
cent. ?-I have increased it three or four times over since the duty was on ; it was no use growing before,<br />
it would not pay.<br />
49975. In 1872, when the duty was increased to 9d. a bushel, you then began to increase the area<br />
<strong>of</strong> land for fruit?-Yes, very much. I had not one-third <strong>of</strong> it in seven or eight years ago.<br />
49976. What is the price <strong>of</strong> the best <strong>Victoria</strong>n apples ?-6s. 6d. They go up from 1s. 6d. to 6s. 6d.,<br />
but we cannot bring in the low priced ones, it would not pay to carry them.<br />
49977. By Mr. Lobb.-You want a railway ?-I qnestion whether that would do it.<br />
49978. By tlte Cltairman.-Do you find the importation <strong>of</strong> fruit at present to any extent goes on,<br />
-,-the class <strong>of</strong> fruit that you produce, viz., apples, are they imported largely ?-They are begirming to import<br />
them now they have risen to 6s. 6d. The Tasmanians are coming in and fetching from 8s. to 8s. 6d. their<br />
best ribstones this morning. The reason they fetch that is the large cases. When the duty was put on<br />
they enlarged their cases, and it is more than a bushel now. Some <strong>of</strong> their cases weigh from 50 lbs. to<br />
55 lbs. I got a case this morning, one <strong>of</strong> the new ones, and I got one <strong>of</strong> the olcl ones, and I could put the<br />
olcl one inside the new one.<br />
49979. That is the Tasmanian fruit ?-Yes. I think the Custom House should have looked after<br />
them more-it is more than a bushel. They weigh from 50 lbs. I always supposed a bushel averaged<br />
40 lbs., instead <strong>of</strong> that they run from 50 lbs. to 55 lbs., in the big cases.<br />
. · 49980. Then the Tasmanians are more liberal than the colonials ?-Yes, but it is to their advantage<br />
-they get it into the C@nntry for 9c1. upon 55 lbs. instead <strong>of</strong> 40 lbs.
1479<br />
49981. You think they should pay more ?-I think they should be made to keep to the 40 lbs. to Charles Draper,<br />
C&ntinu#,<br />
the bushel. 9th lll~>y 1asa •.<br />
49982. Do you think the consumers get the benefit <strong>of</strong> that increa.se for the price ?-I think not ;<br />
th~y sell them accordingly to retailers. '!'hey get Ss. 6d., and we get 6s. 6d.<br />
49983. Do you think the Custom House <strong>of</strong>ficers do not take proper precautions ?-I think they<br />
should not let 55 lbs. come in for 40 lbs.<br />
49984; How do you know that-have you ever measured any parcels ?-I took one <strong>of</strong> the old boxes,<br />
and the new one is an inch wider.<br />
49985. But they only contain a bushel ?-But they contain 55lbs.<br />
49986. Did you weigh it ?-Ithas been weighed.<br />
49987. Will you confine yourself in evidence to what you know yourself ?-I know they are an inch<br />
wider.<br />
49988. But you have not weighed them ?-Pears go, I believe, up to 60 lbs.<br />
49989. You say this fruit is sold here at Ss. 6d. a bushel-that is much dearer than yours-2s. more<br />
-is that a better fruit ?-Not a bit l1etter.<br />
49990. How is it then that people get more for an imported article than for the colonial ?-Because<br />
they suppose the cases are so much larger.<br />
49991. Then they are giving the community a larger quantity for the price ?-I think they get the<br />
worth <strong>of</strong> it, ; those bushels are worth more than our bushels-they are so much larger than our bushels.<br />
49992. You think the retail purchaser is buying a bushel and a half and only paying for a bushel?-<br />
K ot to the extent <strong>of</strong> a bushel and a half; it is 25 per cent. I suppose them to be 55 lbs. and ours are 40 lbs.<br />
49993. You say that is the cause <strong>of</strong> the price being Ss. 6d. instead <strong>of</strong> 6s. 6d. ?-Yes.<br />
49994. Not because the quality <strong>of</strong> the fruit is better ?-Kot at all, they are larger cases.<br />
49995. Do you think that your industry would be affected in the least-would you stop fruit, or recede<br />
in anyway from the advance now going on in your place, if the duty were reduced ?-I am sure, if the duty were<br />
reduced, I should give up and go to Tasmania to grow it, because they-have double the facilities for growing<br />
it, I consider.<br />
49996. If that happened, do you think the consumer here would get the advantage <strong>of</strong> the fruit<br />
growing?-No. They would lose; they would get no competition.<br />
49997. But you have had no competition since the duty was 9d.-can you give the Commission an<br />
idea <strong>of</strong> the quantity ?-,-From Tasmania, in 1881, there were 26,251 bushels.<br />
49998. What kind <strong>of</strong> fruit was that ?-It was chiefly apples, and pears, and plums.<br />
49999. Not all apples ?-Not all apples. Very likely some small fruits were amongst them, but<br />
that would be 2d. a pound.<br />
50000. You can give no actual evidence as to the character <strong>of</strong> the fruit ?-No ; it was worth<br />
£10,250.<br />
50001. You cannot tell that they were all apples which come immediately into competition with you ?<br />
-Just the same fruit as I grow.<br />
50002. Then you grow more than apples ?-I grow more than apples. Just the very same fruit; I<br />
grow them mixed.<br />
50003. And you wish the Commission to understand that if they recommend any alteration in the<br />
duty, your industry would suffer thereby so much that you would reduce the acreage you have got in-in<br />
fact, you would go to Tasmania ?-Yes, it would pay me far better to go to Tasmania.<br />
50004. You do not wish us to understand that you would go there if we recommend that?-I may<br />
be too old to go myself, but I should recommend my sons to go ; I should stop here. It would take 1s. a<br />
bushel <strong>of</strong>f me all round.<br />
50005. Were not you progressing very fairly under the old 5 per cent. duties ?-No.<br />
50006. How many acres did you start with ?--Just one acre; a small garden.<br />
50007. In ten years after that, how many acres had you ?-I suppose about eight.<br />
50008. And the big increase began when the 9d. a bushel was put on?-Yes ; and not only that,<br />
but it induced us to send to aU parts <strong>of</strong> the world to get varieties to compete with Tasmania. I<br />
have between 600 and 700 varieties <strong>of</strong> apples ; we have been trying to cut them out.<br />
50009. There is no duty upon fruit trees, is there ?-No, there is no duty upon fruit trees.<br />
50010. Would it not be desirable for those who produce fruit trees to have a duty?-No; we only<br />
introduce new varieties ; we soon make trees <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
50011. Then your object in giving evidence before the Commission to-day is to insist upon the duty<br />
being continued as it is?-Yes ; and the bushel being more uniform.<br />
50012. And that it be seen to, in order that the imported article be allowed to pass at only 40 lbs. to<br />
the bushel?-Y cs.<br />
50013. Have you any other suggestion to make t.o the Commission ?-No.<br />
50014. You have, in addition to the orchard, a large amount <strong>of</strong> country-what do you use it for?<br />
I am going on planting.<br />
50015. You do not graze at all ?-Yes, I do upon the other part, but all that is fit I am going on<br />
planting with.<br />
50016. Are there uny other fruit growers in that neighbourhood beside yourself?-Yes, these last<br />
two or three years they are planting every bit <strong>of</strong> land that is fit; it is just beginning to come into bearing.<br />
They are planting in all directions. ·<br />
50017. Do not you think that, by continuing this, you will be able sufficiently to supply the local<br />
market,. even if there is no duty on ?-I consider it cost me 9d. a bushel to bring them to market.<br />
50018. If you were in Tasmania, would it not cost you 9d. a bushel to bring them to market ?-,-I .<br />
think they could bring it nearly as cheap as we can.<br />
50019. That depends npon what part <strong>of</strong> Tasmania they are in?-Yes.<br />
50020. How do you bring yours down ?-By carts. ,<br />
50021. Not by the Lillydaie line ?-No, we are not near enough.<br />
50022. And you say they can bring it from orchards in Tasmania, and ship it and bring 'it hundreds<br />
<strong>of</strong> miles, and land it here ao~3 cheap as you can ?-I do not say quite that. -
Charles Dmper,<br />
cantinued,.<br />
9th May. 1883,<br />
1480<br />
50023. Do you employ your own horses and carts to come to market ?-Yes.<br />
50024. And you have ampledemand for all you IJroduce ?-Yes, for all we can sell.<br />
50025. Is Gs. Gel. the average price <strong>of</strong> apples in the market ?-No, it has only lately got up to that.<br />
But I believe some growers near Melbourne were as low as ls. a bushel.<br />
50026. This season ?-This season.<br />
50027. What was the duty upon that article-was 9d. the duty upon an article worth ls.?-You see<br />
they did not come in then, but now they are jnst beginning to ship from Tasmania, and we have been<br />
introducing new late varieties to compete with them, and we have hardly got them into full swing.<br />
50028. Has not this season been tmusually prolific in apples?-Yes, aJl over the country.<br />
50029. And I suppose apples have been cheaper than ever they were before ?-It was about this<br />
time in former years that we looked for them to get up to 10s.<br />
50030. Then this is always a dear s.eason ?-It is always denr when the early fruits areo:ff and the.<br />
Tasmanians do not get a chanee.<br />
50031. Do you think, as a 'fruit grower, that you will ever be in a position to compete with Tasmania<br />
or the adjoining colonies without this duty ?-I cannot ~ay we sh,'tlf be in that position, we are trying our<br />
utmost to get in varieties to compete with them-more prolific varieties ~u1d better keepers. Tasmania is<br />
later than this country, their ribston pippins are coming in now, and ours are all over these three weeks or<br />
a month.<br />
50032. Seeing that that particular fruit does not come into competition with you, do not you<br />
think vou could let them in ?-I do not think so, for theirs comes in as our other fruit comes on.<br />
• 50033. You would get the benefit <strong>of</strong> the longer season if you get in better varieties-if you had not<br />
the duty on ?-We want a little more protection and you will see then. I do not think we could compete<br />
without a duty.<br />
50034. Have you anything else to sn,Y:?-There are other fruit-growers from Tyabb, and there they<br />
. are planting a grent many. I am sorry Mr. Sheppard cli.cl not get' his notice soon enough to come in. I saw<br />
his son this morning; he said that it costs him 1s. a bushel to bring it from Tyabb here.<br />
50035. How much does it cost you ?_;_9cl. ; I could not possibly do it for less.<br />
50036. You have 1,000 acres <strong>of</strong> land altogether:'-Yes.<br />
50037. May I ask you what this 1,000 acres cost you-what is its value ?-I could not tell you that.<br />
I have clone a deal <strong>of</strong> improvements on it.<br />
50038. You have prospered pretty well on fruit growing, have not you ?-I have had to labour for<br />
it anyhow.<br />
50039. Of course, there is nothing to be had without labour, and the more credit to you if you laboured<br />
successfully ; but 1,000 acres <strong>of</strong> land is worth some money, is it not ?-Yes ; but some <strong>of</strong> it is rangy-,.-it<br />
is not fit for cultivation. Most <strong>of</strong> what we cultivate is in the :fiats.<br />
50040. Is it fairto ask you what you value your farm at ?-[-'-:Vo answer.]<br />
50041. Which is the best paying division <strong>of</strong> your industry, the fruit or the cabbage growing or the<br />
grazing ?-I do not go into cabbage growing, except for cattle ; but fruit growing is what we get most<br />
money for, and it is the most expense.<br />
50042. One <strong>of</strong> the Commissioners, Mr. Bosisto, says you grow cabbages. I ask, which is the most<br />
beneficial to you, the fruit or the crops or the grazing ?-The fruit is the most money ; but it is the most<br />
outlay. There is a great outlay in getting an orchard up.<br />
50043. We have this fact staring us in the face, that your industry has been a success, take it all<br />
round ?-Yes.<br />
50044. You have a 1,000 acres <strong>of</strong> land, and, notwithstanding you have laboured for it, it is yours, is<br />
it not so ?-Yes. I suppose there are a few acres less than a thousand.<br />
50045. Ry Mr. Lobb.-How do you utilize the whole <strong>of</strong> this land ?-It is all grazing, except tho<br />
little field we grow for our own uses, and the rest is dairying ; we dairy upon the other part.<br />
50046. How many cattle do you keep ?-We milk twenty cows beside the young ones.<br />
50047. Are you in favour <strong>of</strong> the present dnty upon butter and produce ?-Yes, certainly.<br />
50048. You consmne all the cereals you grow, that is oats and hay ?-Yes, we consume that.<br />
50049. Do you grow wheat ?-No, nothing but hay and the feed oats ; we have to buy a great deal<br />
<strong>of</strong> corn.<br />
50050. How do oats grow in your neighbourhood ?-Well, bL1t we use them all, most <strong>of</strong> the ground<br />
that now grows feed we intend to plant. Of eourse we grow crops between the trees while they are<br />
young.<br />
50051. If you heard a witness, on oath, make a statement that we cannot produce oats here for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> making oatmeal, do you believe it, as a practical farmer ?-I believe we can grow oats here as<br />
well as in any country.<br />
. 50052. By Jtfr . .&funro,-How many bushels <strong>of</strong> apples do you produce in a year ?-I never kept any<br />
account <strong>of</strong> it. .<br />
50053. Can you give us an approximate idea ?-I could not.<br />
50054. Do you sell them in the <strong>Victoria</strong> market or the Western market ?-In the <strong>Victoria</strong> market.<br />
50055. You do not sell to the middlemen ?-Some <strong>of</strong> them buv <strong>of</strong> us. Of course we have to sell<br />
upon t~e wholesale system, having so many coming in. We sell tO' the importers who buy our fruit to<br />
export 1t.<br />
50056. You do not know the quantity <strong>of</strong> apples you sell every year ?-No, I do not know. I know<br />
last year was very few indeed.<br />
. 50057. By Mr. Lobb.-You could tell within 100 tons ?-I would not say at all the quantity, but<br />
1t was very few last year.<br />
50058. By the Chairman.-The principal evidence you wish to impress upon the Commission is the<br />
continuance <strong>of</strong> the duty and the necessity that the imported article shall not measure more than 40lbs. to<br />
the bushel ?-Yes, that is it.<br />
The witness withdrew.
1481<br />
John Rigby Non·is sworn and examined.<br />
50059. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-I am a fruit grower.<br />
50060. Where is your fruit garde)l situated ?-In Boroondara, on the White Horse road.<br />
50061. How many acres have you under cultivation ?-Seven acres a.nd a half are in fruit.<br />
50062. How long have you been growing fruit ?-Twenty-six years.<br />
50063. You have heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Draper ?-Yes.<br />
50064. Do you agree with that evidence ?-Generally speaking, I do.<br />
50065. In what way do you differ from him ?-With reference to his income ansmg from his<br />
orchard produce, it is considerably augmented in his ease but not in mine, I have no other source <strong>of</strong> income<br />
but my fruit alone.<br />
50066. Of course you cannot swear how his income is augmented; give us a knowledge <strong>of</strong> your own<br />
business if you desire to do so, and how the tariff affects you. You say you are solely indebted to your<br />
orchard for your returns. You have no other indudtry?-No other inch1stry whatever.<br />
50067. Do you wish that the system <strong>of</strong>taxation that now exists should be altered in any way P-I<br />
should like to see additional taxation, especially upon the large eases.<br />
50068. Let me understand that before you go on. These large eases have no right to eome in here<br />
you think. They must be measured as 40 lbs. to the bushel, shoulorris,<br />
9th May 1883.<br />
·i
1482<br />
.tohn R. Norrls, was very scarce and difficult to obtain, that is at anything like remuneration. Now in order to establish<br />
llt~i~';'i~s3 . homes where they could rear their families ami make a living they established these orchards.<br />
50091. You did that without any duty to induce yo'tl ?-Yes, I did it for the express purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
making work for myself.<br />
50092. H
1483<br />
50i 17. Are yon in the habit <strong>of</strong> getting cases from Tasmania ?-vVe used to be the largest importers ~.r. a ..ronnsort,<br />
but recently we have receded somewhat. . · · , · gtf"zJ;:' 1 1 ~si>il.<br />
· 50118. Have you had any recently ?-We have, and I can tell you that the measure <strong>of</strong> a bushel<br />
recognised in Hobart recently is 2 feet 4 inches long, H inches deep, and 7 inches across. The cubical<br />
contents <strong>of</strong> that is recognised as a legal bushel.<br />
50119. That is the size <strong>of</strong> case recognised there ?-Yes.<br />
50120. Have you ever weighed a case <strong>of</strong> apples, say one <strong>of</strong> those cases ?-Yes, I have weighed<br />
many <strong>of</strong>. them.<br />
50121. What was the weight ?-They varied greatly.<br />
50122. In accordance with the samples <strong>of</strong> fruit, perhaps ?-Yes, precisely :;o. If you take a mob<br />
'codlin, a large s<strong>of</strong>t apple, grown perhaps upon s<strong>of</strong>t ground, it is naturally a large s<strong>of</strong>t apple, the weight <strong>of</strong><br />
that would run about 38lbs. to 421bs. The Emperor Alexander, a large red apple, I have known as light<br />
as 36lbs. The small hard French crab, grown on hn.rd ground, would run to 50lbs., and it would require<br />
those various weights to fill a uniform case.<br />
50123. Then the proper system <strong>of</strong> dealing with fruits would be to deal with measmement ?-Of<br />
course it is.<br />
50124. Then, if a case is no bigger than our case, the complaint <strong>of</strong> the fruit growers is met ?-Yes ;<br />
we have no recognised case. The common ones <strong>of</strong> the gardeners here are orange cases, which the trade<br />
greatly complain against, and will set their faces against for the future. The complaint is, that they use<br />
the orange case for apples. The orange case has a partition in the middle, and, therefore, does not hold<br />
a bushel. It is called a bushel by our gardeners. It may hold 40lbs. or 42lbs. according to the sort <strong>of</strong> fTuit ;<br />
but it is not the legally recognised bushel <strong>of</strong> Tasmanin.. .<br />
50125. Your statement to the Commission is, then, that it is unfair to recognise 40lbs. as a bushel ?<br />
.-Yes, certainly.<br />
· 50126. How would you remedy their complaint then ?-'I:hese gentlemen say <strong>of</strong> their cases, they<br />
can put them into our cases, that is, they can take the orange case from Sydney and put it into a Tasmanian<br />
apple case. ·<br />
- 50127. By .l11r. Bosisto.-He did not say that. He saicl that he could put a VictoriM apple case<br />
into a Tasmania,n apple case ?-Excuse me ; there is not such a thing as a <strong>Victoria</strong>n apple cn.se.<br />
50128. By the Chai1·man.-You say his statement is incorrect in that respect ?-I should like you<br />
to notice why.<br />
50129. If what the growers say is correct they are perfectly entitled to bring their complaint before<br />
the Commission, because if the system <strong>of</strong> taxation in the country is to be conducted faidy, they have a<br />
·:fight to complain if a fraud exists-you say it does not exist ?-I do say so.<br />
50130. You say that there can be no uniform weight to a bushel at all?-Yes.<br />
50UH. Could we determine upon a certain measure here as a bushel ?-Just as easy as Tasmania.<br />
50132. And have a fixed measure ?-And have n. fixed measure.<br />
50133. And we have no fixed measure ?-And we have no fixed measure. You have an<br />
imperial measure here in the Custom House. That piled, you will find will just fill the Tasmanian<br />
case.<br />
50134. If the Commission visit your place, can we see one <strong>of</strong> those oases weighed ?-Yes.<br />
50135. Have you any Tasmanian in stock now ?-No, a,nd are not likely to have for six weeks ;<br />
but it must be evident to the Commission that weight cannot enter into the consideration <strong>of</strong> a<br />
bushel.<br />
. 50136. You import largely from Sydney P-Yes.<br />
50137. Oranges particularly ?-Yes.<br />
50138. Do our oranges in this country, to your knowledge, grow successfully ?-No, judging from<br />
my own experience. I have tried them, and I have been long enough in the trade to know.<br />
· 50139. Do the consumers prefer the Sydney to the locally grown orange ?-They prefer the Sydney<br />
orange most decidedly, there is no compn.rison.<br />
50140. Do you deal in the local orange at all-the <strong>Victoria</strong>n grown ?-We have on one or two<br />
o.ccasions, when they have been <strong>of</strong>fered. On one occasion we had as many as 100 bushels, and that was<br />
fthe only occasion when we had anything at all like a large parcel.<br />
50141. If the duty were rem.oved from oranges, as you suggest, would it keep you from dealin"'<br />
"in the <strong>Victoria</strong>n article if it were produced ?-Not at nll.<br />
"'<br />
50142. Which orange 'sells the dearest-the <strong>Victoria</strong>n or the Sydney ?-I think they are not in<br />
competition. V\ 7 e never meet with <strong>Victoria</strong>n oranges. I have met with them in the whole <strong>of</strong> my<br />
experience abOLlt four times, that is extending over about twenty-eight J&'trs. They are not known in the<br />
trade. A few years since a small parcel w11s sent. f'rom .vVangaratta, about lOO bushels, as I told you.<br />
I have never heard, n.ltogether, <strong>of</strong> 500 bushels re~Lchmg thu; market.<br />
. 50143. To whom do you vend your fruit-to the retail fruit dealers or to the wholesale consumer<br />
in the way <strong>of</strong> fruit preserving ?-We sell largely to both. In July and August, when they are ripe we<br />
sell largely to the preserving factories, to work up into marmalade, and then we export largely. '<br />
50144. Is the system <strong>of</strong> duty an inconvenience to you in any way ?_:.Nothing beyond the simple<br />
question <strong>of</strong> putting on so much more weight;. that must necessarily come out <strong>of</strong> the consumer.<br />
50145. Have you any suggestion to make ?-I should like to say, while speakino- <strong>of</strong> apples and<br />
'plums and so forth, produced here, that we are much larger exporters than importers. "'<br />
. 50146. Of which ?-Of <strong>Victoria</strong>n grown fruits. This year we have exported to Sytlney largely in<br />
apples, and some plums. We h)1ve sent thousands <strong>of</strong> bushels <strong>of</strong> plums to Adelaide and to New ZealMd<br />
about for three months, every boat carries as much as she can as deck cargo.<br />
50147. Have you clone tlmt yourselves ?-We have done that ourselves.<br />
50148. You speak <strong>of</strong> your own particular business llOWq-I speak <strong>of</strong> our own pmticular business<br />
now.<br />
' 50149. You have been dealing with the fruit growers <strong>of</strong> the country, and now you are much larger<br />
exporters than importers?-Very much larger at the present time .<br />
.50150. Call you tell us how many bushels <strong>of</strong> fruit you have exported ?-I should think about<br />
8,000 to 10,000 cases this season.
,J. Q. Johnson,<br />
' contlnued,<br />
,9tb. May 1883,<br />
1484<br />
50151. A case holding a bushel or a reputed bushel ?-Cases and bushels. This is the first year we<br />
have had cases made, on account <strong>of</strong> the complaint from New Zealand <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> orange cases, for <strong>Victoria</strong>n<br />
,fruit, they are determined they will not have them, therefore this year we are having proper cases<br />
made for apples.<br />
50152. Cases to hold a bushel ?-Cases to hold a bushel.<br />
50153. And you have exported from 8,000 to 10,000 bushels <strong>of</strong> different sorts <strong>of</strong> fruit grown here?<br />
-Yes.<br />
50154. I understood you to say that this is <strong>Victoria</strong>n fruit absolutely ?-I say absolutely <strong>of</strong> Vic·<br />
torian fruit, there is no hesitation about it.<br />
150155. You do not get any drawback for it ?-No we have hardly come down to that.<br />
150156. You are <strong>of</strong> opinion that we have now come, in the colony, to that point that wc produce<br />
more fruit than we consume ?-No question about it.<br />
50157. Then how do you account for such a large importation <strong>of</strong> fruit going on. Green fruit in 1881<br />
gave £6,999 ?-That would chiefly arise from oranges. Last season we may have imported somewhere<br />
about 6,000 cases <strong>of</strong> apples, but that was about all we did last year, and the remainder would be oranges.<br />
Our own importation <strong>of</strong> oranges last year was about 37,000 cases, but we exported a great many <strong>of</strong> those<br />
again.<br />
50158. To where ?-·To Adelaide and New Zealand.<br />
50159. They come from Sydney ?-Yes.<br />
50160. Do you get a drawback for them ?-No, we ship t_hem in bond.<br />
50161. Which part <strong>of</strong> the colony do you get your fruit from mostly?-:M:osHy around Melbourne,<br />
within twelve or fourteen miles <strong>of</strong> Melbourne ; we have received from the neighbourhood <strong>of</strong> Geelong 'and<br />
Sandhurst, the railway returns would show that many thousands <strong>of</strong> cases have been sent from Sandhurst<br />
this year.<br />
50162. And now we have reached this point that we can look forward to be continual exporters <strong>of</strong><br />
fruit ?-Yes, no doubt whatever.<br />
50163. Have you anything else to say ?-Yes, I should like to suggest something about dates<br />
and dried fruit. Our firm is considerably interested in them. We consider the duty very excessive-<br />
2d. a lb.<br />
50164. Is that an article that can be grown in the Colony ?-Certainly not.<br />
50165. Has it been tried, do you know ?-I know <strong>of</strong> a date palm or two a foot or two high, but <strong>of</strong> ,<br />
course they bear no fruit.<br />
50166. It is not a success ?-It is not a success.<br />
50167. Is it a fair article for revenue purposes ?-Certainly it is, but I think the duty is excessive,<br />
and defeats its own object.<br />
50168. In what way ?-Prior to the 2d. a lb. we used to have very large importations <strong>of</strong> mat elates,<br />
their original cost being from £8 10s. to £9 in Bombay, upon which there is a duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a lb .. Of course<br />
that trade is completely settled. If you look through the returns <strong>of</strong> last year you will find that the revenue<br />
from dates is exceedingly small.<br />
50169. Then the valne <strong>of</strong> this article is about 1d. a lb.?-I think if the dnty was 1d. a lb. you<br />
would have a much larger revenue. I have known myself Lhe time when I have purchased 35 tons <strong>of</strong> mat<br />
dates, now I never buy so much as five tons.<br />
50170. You think the article would come in if the duty were reduced ?-It would.<br />
50171. The duty in Sydney is 1d. a lb.-Yes.<br />
50172. And it would come in if that were the duty here ?-Yes, I think it is a fair article <strong>of</strong><br />
revenue.<br />
50173. Would the revenue be largely increased ?-I am sure it would be largely increased.<br />
5017·1. By the Hon. Mr. Lm·imez·.-Would there be any practical difficulty in levying a duty upon<br />
green fmits by weight instead <strong>of</strong> by measure ?-I think there would he every difficulty. You must unpack<br />
almost every case to know, because the weight depends upon the density <strong>of</strong> the apple.<br />
1501715. Knowing the weight <strong>of</strong> the packages, could not you tare them ?-You could get at them,<br />
hut it would not he an accurate knowledge.<br />
50176. You are aware that there is the same variety in the weight <strong>of</strong> bushels as applied to grain<br />
that there is as applied to fruit ?-I do not think so wide.<br />
50177. And in ord.er to get over the anomalies there they went to the cental, and imposed the duty<br />
upon the 100 lbs.?-There you have a uniform package, the sack, with a recognised tare to it. Now if the<br />
cases are made <strong>of</strong> green timber, the weight would be very much more, though <strong>of</strong> the same thickness <strong>of</strong><br />
timber, than it would be if the timber had been drying for some time, and, if I mistake not, the question at<br />
home upon the green fruits is not the question <strong>of</strong> weight, that is only a question that has crept in here with<br />
11 view <strong>of</strong> passing <strong>of</strong>f 40 lbs. as a bushel, that is all that it is, one <strong>of</strong> those little pious frauds that creep into<br />
business, that is all.<br />
50178. Could not you get ut the tare in the same way as you do with the dried fruits, like currants?<br />
-I do not think you could, besides the value is not so much as to make it worth while. }
1485<br />
50183. By JYir. Longmore.-Do you know what fruit is principally imported from Tasmania ?-At<br />
the present time there is nothing coming, but at certain times <strong>of</strong> the year it does come. If you will<br />
mention the time, I can tell you. In ,January certain jam fruits come across, such as raspberry and black<br />
currants. They only "come when our crop .here is small.<br />
50184. Are you aware, from your own knowledge, what fruit is grown principally in Tasmania?-<br />
Yes-apples, pears, plums, and jam fruits, such as currants and raspberries ; those are the leading articles.<br />
50185. Are you not aware that apples are the principal fruit grown?-Yes.<br />
50186. By far the largest ?-Undoubtedly.<br />
50187. You said just now that it did not matter about the duty upon apples, as we have not any<br />
apples from Tasmania ?-Excuse me.<br />
50188. A very small quantity ?-And I remarked, if you remember, that we had but a small portion,<br />
and we commenced importing as soon as our own crop was exhausted.<br />
50I89. \Ve have a return <strong>of</strong> imports here from Tasmania, the quantity iu 1881 was 26,251<br />
bushels "?-Yes.<br />
50190. Would not that be principally apples ?-Largely apples ; a great many <strong>of</strong> those would be<br />
exported, or, in other words, tn:msshipped, but I look upon tlu1t as quite a small quantity; neady as many<br />
as that quantity you mention weut into Sydney in fourteen clays this season. .J llSt two boats took over<br />
23,000 cases, and that is what we received the whole year rouml.<br />
50I91. I know that. I was across in Tasmania some time ago, and I was told then that every<br />
orchard in Tasmania was purchased by <strong>Victoria</strong>n merchants ?-Yes.<br />
50192. Every orchard ?-Of course many a thing is said that is not true, and that is among them;<br />
that is only trne relatively.<br />
50193. Do you know whether apples are as cheap in Tasmania as here ?-They are worth rather<br />
more money than they are here at the present time, and as to your remark about purchase by <strong>Victoria</strong>ns,<br />
take my ow11 instance. My brother is a resident there. Suppose he bought-I could give 11ames <strong>of</strong> some<br />
<strong>of</strong> the large growers, if necessary, that we bought from-Your remarks might apply that they were bought<br />
by a <strong>Victoria</strong>n, because we are o11e ill business, but the bulk <strong>of</strong> the goods go to Sydney.<br />
50194. But I mean they were bought to come to <strong>Victoria</strong> ?-No, they were not bought to come to<br />
<strong>Victoria</strong> ; the bulk go to Sydney.<br />
50195. Was <strong>Victoria</strong> supplying itself with apples do you know when the Tariff was put on ?-No, it<br />
was gragually growing towards it, that is all.<br />
50196. Was it growi11g towf1rds it at the same rate that it has been since ?-Yes, I think so ; I<br />
bought apples eight years ago at Is. 6d. a bushel here. The crops here are somewhat irregular. This<br />
has been an exceptional year. Last year there was nothing approaching the same quantity, but we have a<br />
right to expect that every year there >vill be a large increase.<br />
, 50197. Do you feel that your interest as an importer is in any way antagonistic to the interest <strong>of</strong> the<br />
growc1· ?-Not at all. I would as soon buy <strong>of</strong> the grower as I would import. It is all a question <strong>of</strong> getting<br />
a trifle out <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
50198. But do you think the growers do not get a higher figure in consequence <strong>of</strong> the tax ?-I am<br />
perfectly sure they do not at this time <strong>of</strong> the year. They may just at the finish when they have little<br />
remaining, but upon the whole they do not get any benefit from it.<br />
50199. Do you think that as a whole the duty upon fruit has had any effect in steadying the market?<br />
I think it had some time ago, but I do not think it does it now, we are past that point, but there was a time<br />
when they had undoubtedly a benefit from it.<br />
50200. If they have benefited from it, how could you advocaLe the taking <strong>of</strong> it away ?-I should<br />
think they ought to be able to walk alone now.<br />
50201. 'rhat is their business altogether?-Yes. Then I would put it another wf1y if you think well.<br />
Is it quite fair for us to impose so heavily upon other people when we make u~e <strong>of</strong> their markets, for I can<br />
prove easily the exportation this year is greatly in excess <strong>of</strong> the importation.<br />
50202. Do the other people complain ?-They would like it <strong>of</strong>f. I have had letters from Adelaide<br />
and from Sydney to see whether we could not get the duty reduced, but have never taken the trouble,<br />
because I know the question is simply this, the public have to pay it.<br />
50203. Do you think that the Tariff upon green fruit has had any efl'ect in causin~~; m to be very<br />
large producers ?-It may hf1ve had a small effect just at the beginning, but not .since. vVlten first it was<br />
put on it may have induced some people to go on f1nd pl::mt orchf1rds, but I think that hf1s pf1~sed now.<br />
50204. By tlze Clwirman.-Mr. Longmore asks, does not the grower get a higher price in consequence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the duty ?-I think 11ot, at present.<br />
50205. If the growers did get a higher price, who would pay for it ?-The public, <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
50206. By 1lf1'. Longmore.-Upon what do you base your idea ?-Only upon my experie11ce, that is<br />
all.<br />
50207. That the consumer pays 11 higher price now than he did formerly ?---Only that whatever the<br />
cost is we cannot afford to live at a loss. \'Ve have to put a little pr<strong>of</strong>it on.<br />
50208. If some men f1re inclined to live at a loss-- ?-I mn not.<br />
The w£tness withdrew.<br />
J. G. JohllSon,<br />
continued~<br />
Dth May 1883,<br />
:Fra11cis Boardrnan Clapp sworn ancl examined.<br />
50209. By the Chairman.-\'Vhat are you ?-Managing Director <strong>of</strong> the Melbourne Tramway and<br />
Omnibus Company.<br />
50210. I understand you desire to some evidence to the Commission upon the question <strong>of</strong>maize<br />
and oats. This matter was inquired into to some extent yestcmby and yotuwere not present. · "\Vill you be<br />
kind enough to state what what you wish to convey to the Commission, in what way the Tariff upon these<br />
articles affects your particular businees ?-\'Ye are very large consumers <strong>of</strong> maize, oats, and barley. We<br />
are feeding between 1400 and 1500 horses df1ily, and tlming twelve months we use 573 tons 16 cwt. 3qrs.<br />
25 lbs. <strong>of</strong> maize ; and oats, I 085 tons ; barley 1684 tons. The duty upon maize is 1 s. n ee11tal, and on<br />
F. B. Clnpp,<br />
9th :Ylny 1883.<br />
.. J
F. B. Clapp,<br />
contiin']Jed,<br />
·9th May 1883.<br />
1486<br />
barley and oats, 2s. And maize, 1 may say, is very little grown in this colohy ; the land may be suitable,<br />
but the climate does not seem to suit it. At any mte, very little is grown here, and it is not the same variety<br />
as is grown in other colonies. It is very small and a hard flinty vat·iety, not considered so good for horse<br />
feed as the large varieties, beiu,g much harder. With oats and barley, the duty is so heavy it almost amounts<br />
to prohibition; we are not able to use New Zealand or Tasmanian oats in consequence <strong>of</strong> it. It amounts to<br />
a very large bonus per acre to cultivate it. Taking the last statistics, it amounts, in the case <strong>of</strong> oats, to 21s.<br />
per acre.<br />
50211. The duty upon oats ?-The duty <strong>of</strong> so much per cental per acre grown <strong>of</strong> oats is 2ls., which<br />
is a very large bonus, I consider. It wonl
-14:8:7<br />
50238. By 11£1·. Longmore.~Do you know ifnnaize comes into competition with oats ?-I suppose<br />
it does somewhat, in horse feed. It does not wholly take the place <strong>of</strong> oats.<br />
50239. The policy <strong>of</strong> the country being protective, do not you think it is necessary t~ keep.the duty<br />
upon an article that comes into competition with one that we grow ?-I u.m not advocatmg domg away<br />
with 'the duty wholly. I say reduce it to a fair duty. I do not think it is a fai~· thir:g to give a bonus <strong>of</strong><br />
2ls. an acre for oats, for, in the first instance, the land did not cost above that in many 111stances .<br />
.· 50240. You remember the price <strong>of</strong> oats here about two years ngo ?-I could not quote from memory<br />
what they were, but I know they were mucblower than they are now.<br />
50241. They we1·e from Hid. to 18cl. a bushel ?-Not in this market.<br />
50242. Here in Melbourne ?-I buy as low as I can and I buy largely too, and we never got them<br />
under 2s.<br />
50243. Do you think it is possible for 9, man to live at l8c1. a bushel upon oats ?-At 18d.<br />
, 50244. Yes, because I know there were many thousands <strong>of</strong> bushels-thousands <strong>of</strong> tons-sold at<br />
Is. Gel. ?-ls. 6d. is very low, I think it is too low for the farmer.<br />
. .. 50245. How do you prove that the farmer gains 2ls. per acre, with a duty <strong>of</strong> 2s. per bushel upon<br />
his grain, when his whole produce will11ot come to more than 17s. ?-His whole produce per acre?<br />
502,16. Yes ?-I urn speaking <strong>of</strong> this year.<br />
. 50247. I am speaking <strong>of</strong> the prices the men have had to work for-you know a farmer might be<br />
Jnclined to ask why you could not carry a passenger at lcl. ?-The present duty was not on, I think, in<br />
those very low years.<br />
50248. The Hon. M1·. Lor·imer.-lt began on the 27th <strong>of</strong> October 1880.<br />
, ., . . 50249. By Mr. Longmore.-lt was then. Of course it would be very comfortable for the Omnibus<br />
Company if they could get feed for nothing ?-T4e Omnibus Company do not want feed for nothing, they<br />
are prepared to pay what is right and fair. . ·<br />
· 50250. For next to nothing ?-No, we do not want feed for next to nothing, but we do not think we<br />
are fairly handicapped when the Omnibus Company in Sydney pays 2s. 3d. for oats, while here we pay from<br />
. 3s. to 3s. 4d. We do not see why it should be. -<br />
50251. Are yon,differently placed from any other person in the colony ?-No, I do not ·think I am.<br />
· 50252. Then why do you object to pay the same Customs duty as other people do ?-It interferes with<br />
mv business.<br />
" 50253. You want to get more pr<strong>of</strong>it ?-I want to get what is right ancl fair,- I think we are all interestecl<br />
in giving this evidence. You might, if you liked, extend this evidence to feeding the poor with oatmeal.<br />
50254. Why did not you object to the low price when 1hey were low ?-It was not my busi;tess.<br />
. . 50255. Would you ch·ive the people from the country ?-No, I should like to see them come m, I should<br />
like to see immigration. .<br />
. . .'50256. Y om Omnib11s Company is a great consumer <strong>of</strong> oats, but you would like to get them for<br />
nothing ?-No, not at all.<br />
50257. When there is a scarcity you say you would get the benefit if the duty was taken <strong>of</strong>f?<br />
; In. the years <strong>of</strong> scarcity we should, because they would come in from other colonies.<br />
50258. Who would get the loss ? -,.Perhaps there would not be any loss. There might be a<br />
scarcity in other colonies, but it would give us a chance to get our horse feed at a reasonable price.<br />
50259. At next to nothing ?-No, not at next to nothing.<br />
50260. And get splendid pr<strong>of</strong>its for your company ?-No, not for next to nothing. You may take<br />
other countries that you are speaking <strong>of</strong>, and what would be ~fair price that the farmers could grow oats<br />
for. In other countries they can grow them for much less than they aJ;e here, and they on and thrive,<br />
and the countries do not go to the wall, and the people do not all leave.<br />
50261. Do you find your company an unpr<strong>of</strong>itable speculation, in consequence <strong>of</strong> the price <strong>of</strong> horsefeed_?-!<br />
think last year it would have been very tmpr<strong>of</strong>itable if we had not been able to import a cargo <strong>of</strong><br />
.gram from the East, to average the price.<br />
50262. You complain <strong>of</strong> the loss <strong>of</strong> £6,000 or £7,000 a year, you complain it costs you that, and you<br />
make a proposal that would cost you about £1,000. The question I put is this, does your company suffer<br />
a loss now in running the 'buses ?-No.<br />
_ . 50263. You do notrun at a loss ?-No, we try not to, but we should in many instances if we could<br />
not get some outside cereal that would do for horsefeecl.<br />
50264. But you would like the farmer to run his farm at a loss to suit you ?-No.<br />
50265. B;lj the Chairman.-How many hands do you employ ?-Between 400 and 500.<br />
50266. Then yours is really a large industry in that way?-Very.<br />
50267·. And a large consumer <strong>of</strong> a marketable commodity that the farmer produces ?-Yes, in every<br />
.year.<br />
50268. By tlte Hon. jJfr. Lm·imer.-In the year when oats were so cheap, 1880, what was the cause<br />
<strong>of</strong> that cheapness in the market ?-I suppose it was the supply, which was very great.<br />
50269. Was it a large crop, or was it the lmge imports that did it?-The large crop.<br />
50270. Then had the duty any effect whatsoever in making prices lower?-No, I cannot see that it<br />
had at all. There were extmord.inary crops here-excessive-so large that we had the imports very small<br />
that year.<br />
50271. Then the duty was inoperative as far as that price was concerned ?-It was.<br />
50272. Then, in your opinion, what is it that controls the market price here, is it the local produc<br />
·tions or the importations ?-The local production.<br />
50273. By Mr. Longmore.-Were there any oats in from New Zealand that year?-Not many.<br />
50274. That is not an answer to my question. Were there anv ?-I cannot say w-ithout looking at<br />
the books ; very likely some came for oatmeal, for they prefer them fo~ that.<br />
· 50275. I may mention that in that year there came in oats to the value <strong>of</strong> £16,000 from New<br />
''Zealand ?-Yes, I presume for oatmeal. I do not think our company used a New Zealand oat that year;<br />
it was very rough upon the New Zea,land brmers to bring them here ~nd sell them at those prices,<br />
'l'he witness withdre~~;.<br />
F. B. C!.~pp,<br />
continued,<br />
9tlllL~y 1883.
ll, w. Bartmm,<br />
9th May 1883,<br />
1488<br />
Haworth William Bartram sworn and examined.<br />
50276. By tlw Chairman.-You are <strong>of</strong> the firm <strong>of</strong> Bartram and Son ?-Yes.<br />
50277. What are you ?-Produce merchant.<br />
50278. Where is your place <strong>of</strong> business ?-8 Queen street.<br />
50279. How long hn;ve you been in business as a produce merchant ?-Twelve years.<br />
50280. Did the tariff influence you in starting your business in any way ?-Not in the least<br />
50281. What is the nature <strong>of</strong> the evidence you desire to submit to the Commission in reference to<br />
the tariff-in what way does it affect your business?-We deal chiefly in butter and cheese, and those articles<br />
are now exported to so large an extent that there is no necessity, I think, for any duty ·<br />
50282. The duty upon butter is 2cl. lb., and upon cheese 2d. a lb.?-Yes.<br />
50283. Then I understand you to say that the duty <strong>of</strong> 2c1. a lb. upon butter and cheese is prejudicial<br />
to your business ?-I do not see that it affects it but very slightly, it is troublesome at times when the<br />
market is scarce, and we have to operate somewhat in bond, in the case <strong>of</strong> repacking, and in that way.<br />
Bnt as a rule, in fact altogether, it is an export business, not an import business.<br />
5028,1. Then it is immaterial to you whether it continues or not ?-Except that at times there may<br />
have been a little over exportation and the consumer may have to pay for it inwards at the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
season.<br />
50285. You see it would be very clifficult for the legislature to make a law here that shall have a<br />
certain operation in times <strong>of</strong> plenty and an opposite effect in times <strong>of</strong> scarcity. Does it affect you ?-It<br />
may occasionally, but not much.<br />
50286. As a general rule it does not '?-As a general rule it does not, the exports are so large.<br />
50287. We are producing so much that there is no necessity for it ?- Just so. Since 1878 we have<br />
exported over 1,000,000 lbs. weight <strong>of</strong> cheese per annum on the average.<br />
50288. And how much butter ·?-2,000,000 lbs. <strong>of</strong> butter in 1881.<br />
50289. Are you still exporting ?-Yes, very largely. I have not got the amounts made for tllis<br />
year, but they are approximating to those <strong>of</strong> last year-in cheese at any rate.<br />
50290. How long is it since we became importers, is it since you were in the business ?-I have<br />
a table here copied from the "Australasian Trade Review"- [producing the same].<br />
50291. Can you give evidence from your own experience as a produce merchant. When did you -<br />
begin to export '?-Largely do you mean?<br />
50292. Yes ?-In 1878, particularly in cheese.<br />
5029 3. Has your exportation been increasing since then ?- Y os.<br />
50294. Or has it been standing still ?-We have been increasing.<br />
50295. You have had no year <strong>of</strong> scarcity since 1878 ?-Not a year <strong>of</strong> scarcity, but last year, we<br />
exported a little too much.<br />
50296. As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact butter and cheese were both very high in price, and have been high in<br />
price for two or three years past ?-Yes.<br />
50297. And still your exportation goes on?-Yes, as trade has grown from the colonies.<br />
50298. Where do you export to mostly ?-Nearly all the colonies buy from here, Queensland and<br />
South Australia, and Western Australia and Sydney ; there is a large export trade growing up now.<br />
50299. How comes it now that there is any importation at; all, it is very small; butter gave us £19<br />
in the way <strong>of</strong> duty in 1881, and cheese £75. What class <strong>of</strong> article would that be, English Stilton, and<br />
other famous cheeses ?-A little <strong>of</strong> that, chiefly that, I should say.<br />
50300. The butter was a mere bagatelle ?-Yes.<br />
50301. You think the duty is unnecessary, and does not effect your business ?-Entirely unnecessary.<br />
50302. Do you deal in bacon ?-Yes.<br />
50303. Does the same evidence apply to bacon ?-It does in one sense, and still there is a duty.<br />
50304. How is that ?-There is a large quantity <strong>of</strong> bacon made now over ancl above the require·<br />
ments here, and it is exported, and still there is the duty.<br />
50305. In 1881 the duty collected upon bacon was £24, so not much comes in ?-No, it is an<br />
export thing.<br />
50306. Is there anything else you wish to submit to the Commission ?-No, but I may mention that<br />
I am not a manufacturer.<br />
There are two gentlemen here who make hams and bacon.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
James C. Hutton sworn and examined.<br />
J. c.llutton, 50307. By Mr. M-irams.-What are you ?-Ham o.nd bacon curer, and butter and cheese merchant.<br />
9thlliaylSSa. 50308. The previous witness spoke <strong>of</strong> butter, you heard his evidence, have you anything material<br />
to add to it ?-In reference to the duties in the colonies, I may state, that all the colonies have about the<br />
same duty, that is 2d. on bacon, 2d. on butter, and 2d. on cheese, vvith the exception <strong>of</strong> Sydney, and the<br />
duty on butter in Sydney is not in operation, and in South Australia.<br />
50309. Then do the duties in the other colonies affect you ?-It curtails our trade a little, but not<br />
much.<br />
50310. The duties in other colonies ?-Yes.<br />
50311. But we cannot affect them unless we can get some sort <strong>of</strong> reciprocity ; there is no duty upon<br />
butter in New Zealand, or in South Australia ?-No, the duties here have had a good effect upon our<br />
industries in <strong>Victoria</strong>.<br />
50312. Have you reached the stage when you can do without them ?-I would not like to say that<br />
exactly, hut I may say that the influences <strong>of</strong> climate are in our favour; we have a fine climate for ham and<br />
bacon curing, and butter and cheese making, which gives 11s a great advantage over many <strong>of</strong> the other<br />
colonies, especially the northern ones. The produce <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> in that line is so very much superior to<br />
anything the other colonies produce, that it fetches a higher price.<br />
50313, With all those advantages, and seeing you are so firmly established, would it injure your<br />
business if the duties were removed ?-If we had the same faeilities in the other colonies. You must<br />
consider this matter in connection with our business, as a, question <strong>of</strong> seasons very <strong>of</strong>ten.
1489<br />
.'i0314. Do you export to Sydney?--No.<br />
50315. It doos not affect you there ?-No.<br />
50316. Do yon export to South Australia ?-Yes.<br />
50317. It is free in South Australia ?-Butter is free.<br />
50318. And there is 2d. a pound on the other things~cheese, bacon, and hmn?-Yes ..<br />
50!319 .. And it is the same in New South Wales as it is here?-The smne in :N"ew South Wales.<br />
50320. Do yon say you would like to ml1ke the reduction <strong>of</strong> the duties upon these articles here a<br />
rel1sou for getting the other colonies to reduce in the same Wl1y?-Yes.<br />
5032!. Suppose we cannot do that ?-Then let the duties reml1in as they are.<br />
50322. Since you are exporting, having reached that stage, what benefit are the import duties to<br />
yon ?-In a glut in some <strong>of</strong> the other colonies they might flood our mnrkets with stuff, and interfere with<br />
our manufacturing operations in a given season ; for instance, last year there was a great scarcity <strong>of</strong> pigs<br />
in <strong>Victoria</strong>, and bacon was pretty dear, and it was remark~bly cheap in New Zealand, and we were<br />
protected f!·om a glut in New Zealand by the duty.<br />
50323. Did you import the pigs and make them into bacon here?-Not from New Zealand.<br />
50324. 1 l{ ould it not have a good effect to have no duty, and to import from New Zealand in a scarce<br />
season here ?-:N" ot on me as a manufacturer ; I mn not a commission merchant.<br />
50325. Have you anything else to say?-In reference to the dnty on pigs, during the winter months<br />
we are eompelled to get large supplies <strong>of</strong> mnize feed from the Tw<strong>of</strong>old Bay district. In fact the supply <strong>of</strong><br />
pigs in <strong>Victoria</strong> is so very small that that has been onr dilJiculty. There is a 2s. duty upon those pigs; it<br />
would be to the interest <strong>of</strong> our trade, I think, if the duty was removed, seeing we export more bacon than<br />
ive get pigs, and it is a question <strong>of</strong>impossibility to get dmwback for bacon upon imported pigs.<br />
50326. The drawback wonlcl not be much ?-Yes, indeed it would; if you get 200 sides a week<br />
there is £10 a week, and that is a pretty fair income.<br />
50327. Have you anything further to add ?-Nothing further.<br />
50328. Do you agree with the previous witness upon the main points he put forward ?-Yes.<br />
50329. By the 0/w·irman.-Of course the pigs are your raw material ?-Yes.<br />
50330. Y on wnnt yom raw material free ?-Yes, we do.<br />
50331. Is not this raw material the article which many farmers in this country grow-do not they<br />
grow pigs ?-Decidedly. ·<br />
50332. Do not you think they should have tl1esume assist..'l.ncefrom the State that you have yourself?<br />
Yes, clecidedly; but I wish to point ont that these pigs come in dnring the winter months when there is<br />
no supply <strong>of</strong> pigs, compamtivoly speaking, in <strong>Victoria</strong>; aml it is a fact that most <strong>of</strong> this stuff cmed we export<br />
to Queensland. Most <strong>of</strong> the that we buy here, during those seasons, are sent to Queensland and<br />
other places.<br />
50333. By ltf;·. Mirams.-Does the 2s .. npon pigs have the effect o£ enhancing the price <strong>of</strong> pigs in<br />
this colony ?-Yes, and it effects the supply considerably.<br />
50334, So it benefits the farmer to the extent <strong>of</strong> the duty ?-I cannot see that it does, for he has no<br />
pigs to sell.<br />
50:135. But I asked you whether the farmer, when he has pigs to sell, gets a higher price in con~<br />
sequence <strong>of</strong> the duty ?-No, I do not think it affects him a farthing.<br />
50336. Would it affect the market here when there is a good supply <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong>n pig a?-Yes, I<br />
believe it would then.<br />
50337. To that extent then it wonlcl be an assistance to 1:he farmers to leave it as it is ?-Yes, to<br />
that extent it would.<br />
The ~vitness w1:tlldrew.<br />
Gilman Goodrich Pierce sworn and examined.<br />
50338. By tlte Cl!a;:rman.-What are you ?-I urn now manager <strong>of</strong> a cheese factory.<br />
50339. Do you wish to give evidence upon the question <strong>of</strong> cheese ?-Yes, cheese exclusively.<br />
50340. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witnesRes in relation to the duty upoh cheese. Tile<br />
first witness was <strong>of</strong> opinion, I think, that the duty should be taken <strong>of</strong>f ?-My opinion is that it should not<br />
be meddled with at all. It suits me very well as it is in every respect. I wonlcl dislike to see it tampered<br />
with in any respect whatever. I am decidedly <strong>of</strong> that opinion.<br />
50341. That we ought to let it alone '?-Let it alone. Things go very well, things have settled into<br />
a groove, things are going on well under the present tariff, I think it suits all interests, ami I would not like<br />
them disturbed.<br />
50342. Is your factory turning out much cheese ?-I am ma.nager <strong>of</strong> four <strong>of</strong> five factories; this year<br />
1\Te tumed ont 90 tons.<br />
50343. From your factories ?-Yes, it has been a late summer season, not a long season, I have <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
turned out 170 tons in the year. ·<br />
50344. This seuson has not been such a good one ?-Not so long, it is very short.<br />
50345. Have the cows c1Toppecl <strong>of</strong>f milking more qnic;kly this season ?-Very quick, it was a short<br />
and quick run.<br />
50346. Do you exportthe cheese principally ?-We export the majority <strong>of</strong> it. We sell a good deal<br />
here, bnt we export, I think, the largest part.<br />
50347. Since you sell most <strong>of</strong> your cheese abroad, how does the duty remaining on give you :>"ny<br />
assistance in your industry ?-In answering that question, I might st1tte that had not you adopted the<br />
protective system here, I should not have had any cheese to export at all. I should not have been iu the<br />
business, and I do not think the time has yet come to take it <strong>of</strong>f. .<br />
50348. I am only trying to get at your reason for your opinion. 'You are a practical man, and we<br />
expect practical men when they give practical opinions <strong>of</strong> that sort to give reasons for them ?-I am a conservative<br />
enough not to like to see it disturbed. There may be a lot <strong>of</strong> theory as to how it would work, bnt<br />
I do not like to see it disturbed. That is all.<br />
50349. Have you anything further to say ?-That is all, I think.<br />
50350. If this duty were removecl to-morrow, would it affect, in your opinion, yom business in the<br />
slightest degree ?-I think New Zealand would flood us with cheese. It might uot be just now 7<br />
hut taking<br />
it year by year it would.<br />
J. C. F!utton,<br />
continued,<br />
9th lllay 1883.<br />
0~ G. Pierce,<br />
9th May 1883,
G. G. Pierce,<br />
ccnU"nued.<br />
9tJi JIIay 1883.<br />
1490<br />
50351. What is the price <strong>of</strong> cheese in New Zealand now ?-I do not know.<br />
50352. What is it generally ?-I think about 6c1., but I cannot say positively.<br />
50353. What is the price <strong>of</strong> the same class <strong>of</strong> cheese here ?-7d. and Sd. I think.<br />
50354. We are selling the same kind <strong>of</strong> cheese here at 7!d. as they sell in New Zealand at 6d. ?<br />
That is an approximation.<br />
50355. And you think if the clut.y were removed the New Zealand cheese would come here and<br />
compete with you ?--I think it would, I do not say just now.<br />
50356. But you have not the slightest fear that you could keep all competitors out <strong>of</strong> the market if<br />
yon tried, you know your business ?-I think it would interfere very much with my business.<br />
50357. By .Mr. .iJilirams.-Wbere is the New Zealand cheese sent to now ?-I think they use it all<br />
themselves now. I do not think they export much.<br />
50358. To which colonies do you export ?-To Queensland and South Australia.<br />
'Tlte ~m:tness withdrew.<br />
T. Brenuon.<br />
9Lll May 1883.<br />
Thomas Brennan sworn and examined.<br />
5035!). By Jlf?·, jl{irams.-Whom do you represent ?-Watson and Paterson, bacon and ham<br />
curers.<br />
50360. Do you deal in butter and cheese ?-Yes, largely.<br />
. 50361. Do you support the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witnesses ?-Yes ; I speak with the experience<br />
<strong>of</strong> over twenty ymtrs in this colony. If the import duty upon bacon and hams be removed, I believe it<br />
would have the effect <strong>of</strong> glutting our market with American bacon, or the very lowest quality <strong>of</strong> English<br />
bacon ; in fact, it was the import duty that nursed the industry to maturity, and we have completely cut<br />
out the importation <strong>of</strong> foreign bacon.<br />
50362. Aml now you are doing an export trade ?-And now we are doing an export trade. All<br />
we want is a reciprocity with the other colonies.<br />
50363. To get them to take <strong>of</strong>f their duties ?-Yes.<br />
50364. Make nse <strong>of</strong> our present position ?-Protect us from foreign countries, and have reciprocity<br />
with the other colonies. Our climate is much more suitable for making bacon tlum Queensland, and it<br />
looks so absurd to h1~ve an import duty upon an article from a sister colony that they cannot make themselves.<br />
Protect us from the outside world.<br />
50365. By the Cloavrman.-Do yon think, having reached the age <strong>of</strong> maturity as you say, that it<br />
is necessary to nurse you further?-We want to be protected even in maturity against the invasion <strong>of</strong><br />
outsiders.<br />
50366. Then you have not reached maturity yet ?-Yes, perfect matnrity.<br />
50367. Having reached that stage <strong>of</strong> exporting an article, what reason have you for asking a continuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> the duty ?-Because you would he competed with by a man in New York, who sends bacon to<br />
Liverpool, has it packed there with an Irish packer's name, and sent out here as an Irish article. I sny<br />
that the duty is necessary in my opinion.<br />
50368. You do not show that. I am anxious to get fair evidence. You do not show the necessity<br />
<strong>of</strong> the duty when the :fact remains that you are a large exporter <strong>of</strong> the article. You fear a thing that may<br />
take place now just as well with the duty on as with the duty <strong>of</strong>f '/-Remove the duty, and we would not<br />
be large exporters. Other countries will supply that which we are well able to supply.<br />
5036\:l. Then, if the duty were <strong>of</strong>f, you say this morning upon oath, that your industry would suffer<br />
-you would lose your export trade at once ?-·I say, from an experience <strong>of</strong> thirty years in the provision<br />
trade in Ireland and here, remove the clnty and you open your ports to every needy trader that would<br />
bypothecate his goods and flood the market. I have seen lOO and 200 tons <strong>of</strong> goods (they send tl;w rubbish<br />
<strong>of</strong> the London markets here) sent out and sold, no matter what it fetched.<br />
50370. Suppose the duty were lowered to a penny a pound, would not that do ?-It would be a<br />
penny a pound inducement to people in London to send their goods here.<br />
50371. Then 2d. has :fixed the exact happy medium which keeps the London article out '?-We c1o<br />
not wish to touch the law <strong>of</strong> the country which is protective, and another thing, I do not see that 2s. a<br />
head upon pigs eoming here does the least to encourage the growth <strong>of</strong> pigs in the colony, for we cannot get<br />
a supply; ¥Yhen there are not sufficient pigs here, then we have to purchase in other colonies. .<br />
50372. If the farmers say that the 2s. a head encourages the growth <strong>of</strong> the article, what would you<br />
say then ?-They might speak very truthfully from their own standpoint not from ours.<br />
50373. By 111-r. Longliwre.-When there is 2d. a lb. duty upon the article we export, does it do any<br />
harm to have that upon the Statute Book ?-No, not to our iuclustrv, it is beneficial to it in fact. I<br />
remember twenty years ago going rouml to sell bacon, and they would i10t look upon it because it had not<br />
" Sin clair" or "Coey" or "Varey,'' &c., upon its back. I wore my shoes and broke my health trying to introduce<br />
this industry.<br />
50374. Have you learned iu your business, a,t any time, that merchants trying to establish a trade<br />
and to injure the industries <strong>of</strong> r" country, will submit to a loss upon an article for a long time so as to ruin<br />
the producer ?-They clicl do it for many years till they were tired <strong>of</strong> it. For many years wholesale<br />
merchants paid more for tl1e imported article than they could purchase the colonial for, thereby evidencing<br />
their sympathy with and their preference for the imported article.<br />
50375. Do you think 2d. a lb. would prevent the like <strong>of</strong> that ?-Of course it would, it is a handicap<br />
to keep them out. It keeps away unfair competiton. You know, as well as I do, that at home there are<br />
needy men with good:3 in their warehouses, they send them out here to get money in a,dvance to keep the<br />
bailiff from the door. They do not care wlwt it sells for in time, but it goes.<br />
50376. Then from your evidence I gather tbat the 2d. a lb. upon the article now upon the Statute<br />
Book does not injure anybody ?-·I do not think so. ,<br />
50377. And that it has the effect <strong>of</strong> keeping out these importations that would place us eventually<br />
in the hands <strong>of</strong> the importers ?-Yes, and it has created a market for our pigs. Hundreds <strong>of</strong> thousands a<br />
year are paid to the fhrmers for the pigs thnt ent up the debris <strong>of</strong> the kitchen and the farm-house, and that<br />
cost them nothing.<br />
The ~oitness witlld1·ew.
1491<br />
Henry Berry sworn and examineti.<br />
50378. B:y JYh. 1rfirams.-vYhat are you ?-Salt merchant and salt manufu.cturer.<br />
50379. How long have you been a salt manufacturer ?--Since 1872.<br />
50380. Where is your factory situated ?-Lake Cundare.<br />
50381. How many hands are you employing at your factory ?-Directly and indirectly from :fifty to<br />
sixty, perhaps not quite s:::J nmny now we are not so busy.<br />
50382. That is your usual number, :fifty to sixty ?-I think so, it has been, but I would say it is<br />
something less now.<br />
50383. How many do you employ in your business as a salt merchant ?-I tlo not know, I could not<br />
say. In Melbourne alone we have a dozen, I think.<br />
50384. How does the duty upon salt affect you ?-It induced me to start this industry.<br />
50385. vYonld any reduction <strong>of</strong> the duty act against your interest as a manufacturer ?-I would not<br />
atl vocate by any meuns, as a salt manufacturer, that the duty Le taken <strong>of</strong>f in my own interest, but I would<br />
say tllis, that there are so many who are prejudiced against a colonial article tha,t I would not oppose a<br />
reduction in the interests <strong>of</strong> the cnrers. O:f course, I am not studying my own interests, I know that, in<br />
saying so, bnt, if you wish for an explanation, I can explain it to you by showing you various samples <strong>of</strong><br />
salt, and sbo~wing you the reason.<br />
50386. You would not oppose a reduction in the interests <strong>of</strong> the curers ?--If it could be shown they<br />
suffer as they say they do. They will not use colonial salt, however well manufactured. .<br />
50387. They prefer the imported ?-They prefer the imported, particularly the Black Horse brand.<br />
Would you like to see samples <strong>of</strong> the various sorts which I have here? Yes, the best sort that we get, and I<br />
think that is manufttctnred in the world, is manufactured fl·om this basis-[p;·od1&cing a sample <strong>of</strong> ctear ~ohite<br />
1'ock satt]. It is found in the earth in Worcestershire, the only place where it is found.<br />
50388. By tl~e Cltairman.-What. do you call it ?-Rock salt. It is found hundreds <strong>of</strong> feet below<br />
the surface <strong>of</strong> the ground.<br />
50389. By J£1· •. llfimms.-Roek salt does no~ pay any duty ?-No. This is the other article that is<br />
found in Cheshire-[ Produciug a sample. J The Cheshire sa~t is nmnufacturecl from this. It is a much<br />
inferior article, and the salt is never so good. The experience <strong>of</strong> bacon and meat curers genera1ly is that the<br />
salt that is made in vYorcestershire is much more valuable for curing. In making salt there is much delay<br />
and increasing expense. .All En:.slish salt is manufactured from one sort or other <strong>of</strong> rock salt being dissolved<br />
in water an•l evaporated in pans; they are continually letting brine run into the pans ; the water is pumped<br />
up out <strong>of</strong> the earth in a clear state and evaporated, and they have simply to take the salt out <strong>of</strong> the pans,<br />
that, is the case both in Worcestershire and Cheshire. The difference which I :find in the colony is this.<br />
Our colonial salt contains very many impmities, and we have to go through a chemical process, and it takes<br />
a long lime, and it is costly, so that having laid out, as I have done, some £8,000 or £10,000 on thisindnstry,<br />
I fail to find the public appreciate it as I thii1k they ought to do. I will show you the article I make.<br />
Though I have been led to speak as I did just now, I have very little feeling in the matter; as the_ curers will<br />
not use colonial salt, I will not oppose taking <strong>of</strong>f the duty. This is the sort that I mannfacture-LpToducing<br />
a sample ]-and that-[pTOducing another sample ]-is the celebrated Rlack Horse brand, which is the<br />
favorit.e now throughout the whole world; and even in France, where the duty is very high, they will have<br />
this salt.<br />
50390. By tl1e Clwi1·man.-Is there any property in the one as compared with the other to<br />
distinguish it ?-Yes, I think the one is about as chemically pure as the other, though there is a difference<br />
in the constituent parts.<br />
50391. There is a greater preserving power in the one than in the other?-Yes, the bacon makers<br />
say so, but the butter people like my salt. .<br />
50392. One is a whiter salt than the other ?-Yes, there is no use trying to compete with it, we<br />
cannot do it. Even the Liverpool salt makers, who turn out much more salt than Corbett does (turning<br />
out over 6,000 tons a week), cannot compete with Corbel.t in colour or purity.<br />
50393. If the duty were taken <strong>of</strong>f you would turu yonr a&tention to the imported article ?-Yes. I<br />
have no doubt I should make as much money at it; you will see at once t.lutt from the nature Of the two<br />
classes or basis that competition is impossible. This man (John Corbett, Esq., M.P .) happened to pnrchnse<br />
this large tract <strong>of</strong> country in >;v orcestershire, where there was this large bed <strong>of</strong> rock salt, which had no<br />
colouration and no impurities.<br />
50394. If this duty were removed, would it h~tYe the effect <strong>of</strong> closing your factory?-Yes, I think so,<br />
decidedly.<br />
50395. Your factory would be closed then on the one haml, and the duty wou1d be lost on the other<br />
hand ?-I have <strong>of</strong>ten been to the Commissione1· <strong>of</strong> Customs in the interes~s <strong>of</strong> my customers, because it has<br />
been made capital against me by opposition men, that having a factory it was to my interest to have the<br />
duty on against the interest <strong>of</strong> the men I was selling to, and I have gone to }tsk for the duty to be removed,<br />
and the answer was, "we want a revenue."<br />
5039G. Suppose the duty was lowere(l to !Os. a ton, would that shut up your factory ?-I think<br />
possibly it might.<br />
50397. If the duty were reduced to 10s. and the import was no larger we should lose half the<br />
revenue ?-:My brother reminds me that for some kinds it might stop our work. Will you kindly put the<br />
question again, I am a little deaf.<br />
50398. Suppose the duty were lowered to 10s. instead <strong>of</strong> 20s. a ton, wouhl it have the effect <strong>of</strong><br />
closing yom fn,ctory ?-Yes, it would for best kinds.<br />
50399. Is the most <strong>of</strong> tl1e trade in best kinds ?-In manufacturing my salt it unfortunately happens<br />
that we cannot do it without having a lot <strong>of</strong> second-class salt with it, which we have to take out either at<br />
the same time or afterwards upon the same day, and this salt is unsaleable here. .At home they have<br />
nothing <strong>of</strong> this, they merely let the water in at one end, and evaporate it, and tlLke out the salt at the<br />
other.<br />
50400. What proportion <strong>of</strong> the salt u~ed in the colony do you manufacture at Lake Cundare ·?-I<br />
suppose one-fifth.<br />
50d.Ol. Not more than that ?-No, certainly not more.<br />
50402. Are there other An.H nJfllfUffLctnrers in the cn+ony '?-Th0re lmye been seven.tl, fl.nd they havE~<br />
ne:lJrl;Y l'lll f.mme to grioe,<br />
Henry Berry,<br />
9th J;Iay 1883,
HenryBeny,<br />
continued.<br />
9th :May 1883.<br />
1492<br />
50103. The dut;y last year was £7,498, that is equivalent to 7,498 tons. Have you anything further<br />
to say ?-I think I may say, perhaps, the same as the gentlemen som 25s. to<br />
30s., leaving a little variation, according. to circumstances. .<br />
50"115. Would 25s. be it ?-From 25s. to 30s. is perfectly safe for the W orcestershiro fine salt.<br />
Coarse comes much cheaper.<br />
50416. What is the freight and charges for baggiHg and shipping before it is lauded here ?;_The<br />
sacks are 7~cl. each, that we p!ty a,t home now, and 4~d. for small bags, lcwt. bags; the freight is £1<br />
to 25s.<br />
50417. Then do not you think that that immense freightage is sufficient protection and encouragement<br />
to the salt manufacturer here?-You must remember that my factory is l 00 miles up the country, and<br />
to bring the salt down to Me1bourne is a very expensive item. It costs me just ns much to carry it that<br />
hundred miles as it does to bring it out from Eug·land.<br />
50418. But. does not it cost the English manufacturer as much to bring it to the port <strong>of</strong> shipment<br />
as it costs you ?-No; where I get mine shipped from now, it only costs him a few shillings to deliver it:<br />
it used to cost more, but lately there are very large docks opened up at Sharpness, and this is in elose<br />
proximity to John Corbett's place. He is a Member <strong>of</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong>; he owns this immense clock in<br />
conjunction with one or two others, and they have built a very fine place. The ships load there almost<br />
close to the works, and we get the salt pnt on board at a cheaper rate than formerly.<br />
50419. J)ut you cannot say your freight from yonr factory is anything like 25s. a ton ?-The freight<br />
from my factory does not cost me a.nything less at the present time than 20s. exactly,<br />
50±20. You pay 20s. a ton ?-Yes, to bring it from my factory to Melbourne.<br />
50421. Do not you sell a lot to go to the interior <strong>of</strong> the country ?-I sell some at Ballarat and other<br />
places, but it has to go away round via Geelong, after being carted eleven miles across the country in an<br />
opposite direction from the place where I want it to go to.<br />
50422. At all events, you can see yourself that th6 duty is nearly equivalent to cent. per cent. upon<br />
the value <strong>of</strong> the article in the old country ?-I see that. ·<br />
50423. I must say that you are giving your evidence remarkably fairly, to my mind. Now, can you<br />
say if it be reduced 10s., it would be a large benefit to the curers and very little injmy to you ?-I feel this<br />
(you have been pleased to compliment me very highly in saying that I gave my evidence fairly, I desire<br />
to give it as fairly as I can) that the curers, being prejnclieed, will not use colonial salt to cure their meat<br />
as a rule.<br />
50424. Is it not fair also to say this, that it is not a prejudice, because, according to your evidence,<br />
you admit that this salt from Worcestershire is so immensely superior to yours ?-I do not say it is so<br />
immensely superior to mine, because I say, as a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, there is very little difference in it chemically;<br />
and it is good enough for butter, and it pleases some persons better, and some customers like it better.<br />
However, the Black Horse brand has a name all over the world, and it has a very firm hold upon the people<br />
here ; but the name has ~omething to do with it ; ancl it is thought a better salt. I think we shall never<br />
be able in <strong>Victoria</strong> to make a salt like what that man makes from that article-[pointing to the clear crystal<br />
w!tite 1·ock salt].<br />
50425. By .Llfr. Mirams.-1Inless we find a deposit like his?-Yes; but ours is made from the water<br />
<strong>of</strong> the lakes, which is very impure, or from sea water, which contains twelve or thirteen other chemicals<br />
besides pure salt.<br />
50426. By tile Clwinnan.-Do all our lake~ contain salt similar in quality ?-The lake I !Lm on is<br />
about the best I know <strong>of</strong>, but some are so impure that I could not possibly make salt from the water.<br />
I could get any amount <strong>of</strong> Glauber's salt and Epsom salts, aml various preparations <strong>of</strong> magnesia. You<br />
must thoroughly bear in mind I am not advocating taking <strong>of</strong>f the duty Oit salt, but I say I am in conscience<br />
bound to speak <strong>of</strong> things as I find them.<br />
50,!27. By .1111·. Longm01·e.-Would not you think that salt should natnrallv bear its share <strong>of</strong> the<br />
expenses <strong>of</strong> the country the same as other articles ?-I have not the slightest objection to that,<br />
50428. It is a legitimate object for Customs dnty?-Yes, I think so ; I did not think so till it was<br />
pointed out to me l'y Mr. Francis, when I waited upon him on one occasion, that takin"' it at a duty <strong>of</strong> £1<br />
0<br />
a ton, it would not make more than 1s. a tierce upon beef,
]493<br />
50429. That being the case, and your industry employing 50 men, Jo not you think it would be wise<br />
to continue the duty ?-I beg pardon ; I woultl not like it to go forth that I say I am uow employing 50 men,<br />
for I am not. vVe are now very slack. In times past we have employed as nmny as 70.<br />
50430. You employ a certain numbet• <strong>of</strong> hands making salt. _ Do not you think it would be wise to<br />
continue the duty to see if the prejudice again8t the colonial article will not pass away ?-I can scarcely<br />
express an opinion about it. I have said about all I can say about it.<br />
50431. At all events it would be prejudicial to your factory if it were reduced to 10s. ?-Yes, it<br />
would, it would be so much out <strong>of</strong> my pocket.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Adjo~t?'ned<br />
to to-1JW?'Tow, cot Two o'clock.<br />
Henry 'Berry.<br />
eonthwed.<br />
9th May 1883,<br />
JAJYIES MIRAJIIS,<br />
W. M. Cook, Esq.,<br />
J. A. Woodward, Esq.,<br />
W. F. Walker, Esq., M.L.A.,<br />
E. L. Zox, Esq., M.L.A.,<br />
THUHSDA Y, lOTH MAY, 1883.<br />
Present:<br />
Esq., l\
R S. Grahn.mr<br />
Esq., J.P.,<br />
COJltinued.<br />
12th May 1883,<br />
1494<br />
50452. Have you secured a better price for your oats since the last alteration in the tariff?-Yes.<br />
50453. To what extent ?-""\:Ve used to sell as low as 2s. Gel. a bushel some seasons.<br />
50454. What do they range at now ?-Three shillings, on an average.<br />
50455. Does that represent the amount <strong>of</strong> the increase in the duty, the additional Gel. a bushel ?-It<br />
assists materially.<br />
5045G. The increase <strong>of</strong> duty was from Is. to 2s. a centil, was it not ?-Yes.<br />
50457. Th>tt is about equal to 5d. a bushel on oats ?-Yes.<br />
50458. Are we producing in the colony nearly a sufficient supply <strong>of</strong> oats to meet our own demand?<br />
I believe so, we are not far <strong>of</strong>f it at any rat~.<br />
50458. It has not reached the stage at which we export it, has it ?-.Ko, not quite.<br />
50460. In a year or two, when the supply has slightly increased and it becomes an exportable<br />
commodity, will the duty then have any effect upon the price you will receive for it ?-No doubt, if we had<br />
an overpl{~s <strong>of</strong> it, but we have not that at the present time, we should have to send it elsewhere.<br />
50461. Would not the price you obtain fot• that portion you export govern the price <strong>of</strong> the whole<br />
p1·ocluction ?-It may do to a certain extent. ·<br />
504cG 2. The same as it does with when t at the present time ? -Yes.<br />
50463. Under those circumstances the duty would not be <strong>of</strong> any advantage t.o you '1--N o.<br />
50464. This neighbourlwod is suitable for the growth <strong>of</strong> oats, is it not ?-Yes.<br />
5046ti. About the most suitable in the colony ?-Yes, it is a moist climate.<br />
5046 G. 'V e have heard a great deal about the quality <strong>of</strong> oats, the q
1495<br />
50498. In what way ?-Something similar to the other cereals.<br />
50499. But do not you realize the fact that it is in exactly the opposite position to all those other<br />
cereals. vYe have an enormous quantity <strong>of</strong> wheat, more than we want to use, which we 'Yant to export,<br />
and none <strong>of</strong> the other cereals have as yet reached that point at all ?-So far as <strong>Victoria</strong> is concerned, I ilo<br />
not think we have an abuncbnce <strong>of</strong> it. vVe im1'ort it from other districts.<br />
50500. Have no1; t1bundance <strong>of</strong> what ?-Wheat.<br />
50501. Yes, we have. None comes at all in except a little for seed, and so on, but we have 3,000,000<br />
bushels to export ?-I did not know tlmt. I have not paid much attention to it, not growing it.<br />
50502. As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact the price <strong>of</strong> wheat is here mled by the price growers get outside the<br />
colony ?-I do not pay much attention to that, not growing wheat.<br />
50503. Personally you do not object to the removal <strong>of</strong> the duty upon wheat?-No.<br />
50504. Might the duty upon potatoes be removed?-I clo not think so, New Zealand could swamp us<br />
in that as well as in the grains.<br />
50505. Have you any alteration in the tariff to propose at all ?-I clo not think I have any alteration<br />
worth mentioning.<br />
50506. There has been a great deal <strong>of</strong> evidence given to the Commission, and a great deal said in<br />
the press in relation to the question <strong>of</strong> malting in bond. Are you, as a grower <strong>of</strong> barley, opposed to that<br />
proposal or in favour <strong>of</strong> it ?-I am opposed to it.<br />
50507. Will you state to the Commission upon what ground ?-We might as well allow the English<br />
barley to come in ns the malting in bond. I fail to see the clifterence that it would mnke.<br />
50508. Are you under the impression that the proposal to allow Melbourne maltsters to malt in bond<br />
is for the purpose <strong>of</strong> disposing <strong>of</strong> the malt after it is made in the colony <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> ?-As long as it is<br />
disposed <strong>of</strong> in the colony.<br />
50509. But are you under the impression that the proposal to nllow Melbourne maltsters to malt in<br />
bond is for the purpose <strong>of</strong> disposing <strong>of</strong> the malt after it is made in the colony <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> ?-Yes.<br />
50510. It could not he possibly clone without paying the duty. The proposal to allow malting in<br />
bond is simply a proposal to allow the maltsters to h1ke in barley, say from New Zealand, malt it in bond,<br />
and export it again to either Sydney or Adelaide in the shape <strong>of</strong> malt, so as to be enabled to compete in<br />
the Sydney or Adelaide markets with the New Zealand maltsters. If a :Melbourne maltster attempted to<br />
put that malt on to the Melbourne market, and dispose <strong>of</strong> it in <strong>Victoria</strong>, made from foreign barley, before be<br />
could do that he would have to pay the duty just as if he had paid the duty before he turned it into malt?<br />
Of course that materially alters the case. Of course I should have no objection to that arrangement.<br />
50511. By M;r. ~~olntyre.-How long have you been here ?-Twenty-five years.<br />
50512. What area <strong>of</strong> land had you first when yon started here ?-Five hundred acres.<br />
50513. You have steadily increasecl tl~at to 1,600 acres ?-Yes.<br />
50514. What do you value yom land at ?-It is bard to say. Land is going up at such a rapid rate<br />
that we can hardly form an idea.<br />
50515. At the present price ?-Some <strong>of</strong> it is worth a great deal more than the other.<br />
50516. I am speaking about your own ?-Even my own is so widely scattered.<br />
50517. What would he the average <strong>of</strong> it ?-Some <strong>of</strong> it is worth, at the present prices, about<br />
£30 an acre, other about £5.<br />
50518. Then would it be too much to average it at £12 an acre ?-No, it is not. I would not let<br />
it go for that. ·<br />
50519. You have built that up out <strong>of</strong> your farming inclustry ?-Yes-no, not exactly out <strong>of</strong>'that, I<br />
might have ha.d a little money previous to that.<br />
50520. I do not ~tsk so inquisitively as that. You started at 500 acres, and now you have property<br />
worth over £20,000. You s!ticl to the Chairman that the removal <strong>of</strong> the duty would affect you prejudicially,<br />
that is upon oats, that formerly you were receiving 2s. Gel. a bushel upon oats, and now you receive 3s.<br />
Did not you receive more than 3s. Gd. a bushel for oats long before there was any dnty on at all ?-Yes,<br />
we received 5s., but that was many years ago, when there was not much farming going on.<br />
50521. It is a question <strong>of</strong> supply and demand. You bad not the stuff, and you were sure <strong>of</strong> a<br />
demand for it ?-Yes, hut we are sure <strong>of</strong> the stuft'now, we have the ground broken up.<br />
50522. You say we have a sufficiency now in the colony to supply the demand ?-Of oat.s?<br />
50523. Yes ?-Not quite.<br />
50524. But you got more for oats before the dnty was on, was not that so ?-Many years ago.<br />
50525. How many years ago ?-Ten or twenty years ago.<br />
50526. Twenty years ago you were getting 20s. a bushel ?-I never saw that here.<br />
50527. And ten years ago you got 5s. a bushel for oats ?-Yes.<br />
50528. Was there any duty on them ?-No duty.<br />
50529. Then the duty has not affected the matter at all, has it, in cereals ?-After that, <strong>of</strong> course,<br />
they fell so low if it had not been for the duty we would not have been growing oats at all.<br />
50530. When the duty was on they we1·e very low ?-But it had not tn,ken effect then.<br />
50531. You think it stopped the importation ?-To a great extent.<br />
50532. Then if you are only getting 6d. a bushel more for your oats than yoll would have got if<br />
there were no duty on, who is paying that 6d. ?-I suppose those that purchase.<br />
50533. The consumers pay it ?-Yes. .<br />
50534. What extent <strong>of</strong> oat land is there in this neighbourhood here ?-I could not stty; it i,:; a broad<br />
question.<br />
50535. Y on know the locality very well, being so long here. How many acres do you think are<br />
suitable for growing oats. Of course you have shown that some grow as low as :fifteen hnshels an acre aml<br />
some as high as 50 ?-Any ground snitahle to grow any other cereals is suitable for oats, for oats will<br />
grow upon much poorer grouml than barley or wheat will. .<br />
50536. Some <strong>of</strong> the farms that you call best fmms produce rbuch more than other farms do, and you<br />
can tell how many acres <strong>of</strong> land in this neighbourhood are suitable for oat growing. You know, as a matter<br />
<strong>of</strong> fact, that not much land in the colony <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> is suitable for oats except such country as this ?-There<br />
may he 4,000 acres, but those 4,000 do not all grow oats.<br />
1~. R, Grn.ba.m,<br />
Esq., J.l'.,<br />
contnwed.<br />
12th ntay 1883.
1~ ... s. Gtabam,<br />
Esq., J.P.,<br />
conttnued,<br />
12th May 1883,<br />
1496<br />
50537. But they could grow oats ?-Yes, they are Euitable for oats.<br />
50538. And you think the duty should be continued for the purpose <strong>of</strong> continuing t.he production <strong>of</strong><br />
oats on this particul11r mea <strong>of</strong> land ?-Yes.<br />
50539. What do you mean by best farms ; is the best farm that which is manured and cultivated ?<br />
·when I say best farms I mean the best soil.<br />
50540. Natural soil ?-Yes.<br />
50541. What does your own farm produce on the average. You say you cultivate sometimes as<br />
many as 400 acres ; do you produce oats principally ?-Oat.s, wheat, and barley, when I did do so_.<br />
50542. How many bushels <strong>of</strong> oats would your ground produce now-say upon the average. Would<br />
it be 45 bushels to the acre ?-The last two years mine averaged 60 bushels an acre; but the next two or<br />
three years it might be half that.<br />
50543. Would it be fair to take it at 40 bushels as an average ?-Not all round.<br />
50544. What would i.t be ?-Twenty-five perhaps.<br />
50545. That would be at 2s. 6d. per bushel, or say 3s. a bushel-£3 5s. per acre. You told the<br />
Chairman the cost <strong>of</strong> sowing and arranging the whole farming would be about 20s. an acre without the<br />
threshing, which would be 10s. an acre more, and that the straw would be 40s. an acre this year. Then<br />
the 40s. covers the whole expense you can possibly name in connexion with the keeping <strong>of</strong> the farm, and<br />
lOs. more than the cost, so that you get £a 3s. out <strong>of</strong> every acre, and 10s. beside, which is £3 13s. an acre<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>it ?-Yes ; but that is only an occasional time. In other years the straw may lie and rot ..<br />
50546. But in other years you may get more for straw than in this ?-No; I think this is an extremely<br />
high price.<br />
50547. Is not there a prospect <strong>of</strong> a good coming year ?-No; t.here would be too much hay and<br />
gmss down below, and then we get nothing for straw at all.<br />
50548. But even taking <strong>of</strong>f the straw you still show a pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>of</strong> £1 13s. an acre ?-If we do not get<br />
a pr<strong>of</strong>it in some way, what is the good <strong>of</strong> farming?<br />
50549. ·what is the rent for a farm per acre, about here-a medium farm ?-A fortnight ago I heard<br />
one landlord refuse 30s. an acre rent for twelve months.<br />
50550. 'l'hat is a farm that would produce about 60 bushels <strong>of</strong> oats to the acre ?-Yes.<br />
50551. Then the Commission is to understand from you that provided the malting in bond is carried<br />
out on the principleJ> the Chairman has put, that is that it does not come into competition with the local<br />
barley, you have no objection to the malting in bond being allowed ?-I have no objection to malting in<br />
bond; but I think it ought to be <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley.<br />
50552. <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley cannot be malted in bond, it is only barley that comes from foreign parts<br />
that is dutiable, and therefore bonsled. Now, if that barley be imported and malted in bond, and then<br />
exported again-do you agree with that course ?-I do not agree with malting in bond at all; I do not<br />
consider it is right.<br />
50553. Y on said to the Chairman it was right if it dill not come into competition. If the duty<br />
were taken <strong>of</strong>f potatoes, do you mean to tell the Commission that the eolony <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> would be swamped<br />
from New Zealand with that particular root ?-Yes.<br />
50554. Is there any probability <strong>of</strong> such a thing occurring ?-I think so.<br />
50555. Are not we at present pretty ·well supplied with potatoes from theW estern district, W arrnant<br />
bool, and so on ?-About half.<br />
5055G. Does that come into competition with the Lancefield growers ?-Yes.<br />
"50557. Would it not be right to have a duty upon them then to protect you ?-How could you<br />
manage it ?<br />
50558. You would like it ?-Certainly not.<br />
50559. By M1·. Longmore.-I would like you to enter into a few particulars about the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
producing-what is the cost <strong>of</strong> ploughing· an acre ?-The cost <strong>of</strong> ploughing is nowadays much cheaper<br />
than it used to he-it is about 10s. an acr(l.<br />
50560. Harrowing?-You get harrowing and all done for l Os.-at any rate it is not more than<br />
2s. Gd. more.<br />
505Gl. Seed ?-Seed 6s. to 'is.<br />
505G2. Cutting ?-Six shillings an acre.<br />
50563. Threshing is £1 a hundred, is it not ?-Yes.<br />
50564. And yon pay the labour ?-Yes, it costs about £2.<br />
50565. That is 5t1. a bushel for a crop <strong>of</strong> 25 bushels-that is lls.<br />
505GG. Bags ?-Ten shillings a dozen.<br />
50567. Half a dozen will do an acre <strong>of</strong> 25 bnshels ?-Yes.<br />
about that.<br />
50568. There is 5s. carriage <strong>of</strong> the grain to Melbourne ?-A bout 5s. a ton-that is from the station,<br />
but there is carriage to the station as well, which may be another 5s. perhaps.<br />
505G!.l. A ton <strong>of</strong> oats is about 56 bushels, is it not?-Yes.<br />
50570). That would be 5s. altoget,her per acre ?-Yes.<br />
50571. Expenses in Melbourne ?-They are pretty large with commission agents.<br />
50572. I want to know for calculation's sake ?-Fourpence-halfpenny a bushel.<br />
50573. That is 10s. an acre for 25 bushels ?-Yes.<br />
50574. Xow what about your wear and tear ?-Of course there is something to be looked to in<br />
that.<br />
50575. I just want to show you this now as compared with your evidence, because when you started<br />
you showed that there were 35 bushels to the acre upon the average <strong>of</strong> oats, and that the sale <strong>of</strong> the straw<br />
more than covered all the expenses connected with the production <strong>of</strong> it, so that would be five<br />
guineas an ~1,cre clear pr<strong>of</strong>it to the farmer for every acre <strong>of</strong> oats he grew upon the average ?<br />
Yes.<br />
5057G. Now here you have given us expenses amounting to £2 15s. Gel. for growing an acre <strong>of</strong><br />
oats, and you have not allowed anything for we::tr and tear, and you s~ty now that the average is 25 bushels<br />
to the acre, which at 3s. comes t.o £3 15s. ?-Yes.<br />
50577. Would you put. 4s. Gd. an acre ou for wear and tear ?-No.
1497<br />
50578. What woulL1 you do for interest oE your money for twelve months-for your implenients<br />
when you have to re-supply them when they are broken up ?-Yes, that is true. .<br />
50579. vVe eau certainly put down £3 as the cost <strong>of</strong> an acre <strong>of</strong> oats, and you reahze about £3 10s. or<br />
£3 l5s. according to your statement ?-Yes. ·<br />
50580. So it is not all pr<strong>of</strong>it ?-I am aware <strong>of</strong> that, although the other gentleman thought it was all<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>it ; if he had put it in the same way as you do it woulll appear quite clitTerent.<br />
50581. vVhen did you see an average <strong>of</strong> two tons <strong>of</strong> stmw <strong>of</strong>f an acre <strong>of</strong> grain ?-Perh!~ps never;<br />
I 8nid there may be about that, because, as far as my judgment is coueerued, I never did grow hay. .<br />
50582. No, no, straw. I ask these questions becanse I think you spoke w1tbont thought-just<br />
to put the ma,tter right, what is the average quantity <strong>of</strong> hay that grows per acre in the colony ?-Perhaps<br />
about 30 cwt.<br />
50583. The straw will not be more than half that when you take the grain <strong>of</strong>f?-No; <strong>of</strong> course<br />
when the grain comes out there is not the weight.<br />
50584. Then the averag·e <strong>of</strong> straw is 15 cwt. instead <strong>of</strong> two tons, ::ts you put it ?-Yes, bui, last year<br />
was a heavy crop, and I dar~· say we might have pretty near it, but as an average we have not anything<br />
like that.<br />
50585. Are you always sure <strong>of</strong> getting £1 a ton for your straw ?-I never saw it before till this<br />
year, and we are not likely to see it again for some years.<br />
50586. Have you formed any idea whether a duty upon an article coming in tends to steady the price<br />
<strong>of</strong> that artiele?-Yon mean on grain?<br />
50587. Suppose that a man has to pay 2s. a cental upon oats, and they are only 2s. a bushel here,<br />
will he semi into the colony then, as a rule ?-No, it is a check.<br />
5058fl. Therefore it keeps out importation when the market is low?-Yes.<br />
50589. Anil at the time that the farmer wants to realize something for his crop, that is when it is<br />
very low, foreigners are kept out?-Yes.<br />
50590. And yon approve <strong>of</strong> that ?-Yes.<br />
50591. Do you think if we should get a very bacl year for wheat growing, and we should not grow<br />
enough for our own use, would not that duty be a preventive <strong>of</strong> wheat coming in, so as to prevent the<br />
fanners getting a high price ?- Y cs.<br />
50592. By .Mr. Lobb.-Yon occupy 1,600 acres; I am not going into any evidence that has been<br />
already taken; I may ask a few questions upon matters that have not been toucl1ecl upon. Hmv do you<br />
occupy t.he remaining portion <strong>of</strong> yonr land ?-Dairying and grazing.<br />
50593. Are you in favour <strong>of</strong> any alteration in the duties upon butter, cheese, and baeon, ami that<br />
sort <strong>of</strong> thing; any redttctiou ; Ol' are you in favom <strong>of</strong> retaining the duties as they are ?-In favour <strong>of</strong><br />
retaining them as they are.<br />
50594. Will you tell the Commission what are the things you are concerned in regarding farming;<br />
do you make cheese ?-Not now.<br />
50595. Buttet· ?-Yes, we make a little butter, but I have knocked <strong>of</strong>f cheesemaking ; but as far as<br />
cheese is concerned I know that the dnty certainly onght to be upon it, and that the duty upon cheese ought<br />
to remain. I clo not know whether there is any clut.y upon comlensed milk, but I think it ought to be<br />
seen to.<br />
50596. In fact you are in favour <strong>of</strong> the present duties?-Yes.<br />
50597. By M1'. Woods.-I think there is no duty upon condensed milk ?-I think---.<br />
50598. By .tl£1'. Lobb.-You disagree with the eYiclence given by certain grainbrokers the other<br />
{1
R S. Grallam,<br />
Esq.,J.P,,<br />
· continued,<br />
12th Mny 1883.<br />
1498<br />
50G10. If you add on to the cost <strong>of</strong> the cultivation <strong>of</strong> an acre 12s. for the rent <strong>of</strong> it, taking the<br />
Yalue <strong>of</strong> your own farm, and putting 2s. 6tl. instead <strong>of</strong> 4s. Gtl. for the wear and tear or implements, it n1akes<br />
up a total cost, according to the list you have given, <strong>of</strong> £3 lOs. per acre per annum ?-Yes.<br />
50G11. And a return <strong>of</strong> 25 bushels per acre would give you £3 15s. in money, a pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>of</strong>. 5s. an<br />
acre?-Yes, an cl many a time we work at a loss instead <strong>of</strong> a pr<strong>of</strong>it.<br />
506!2. Those then are exceptional seasons when yon lose the crop altogether ?-Yes.<br />
50G 13. Every fal'mer <strong>of</strong> cOJn·se has to take a risk, but do you wish the Commission and the country<br />
to believe that 5s. per acre pr<strong>of</strong>it is the usnal ::md normal rate <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it upon farming operations in this district?<br />
-It varies, in some years that is all the farmers get.<br />
50614. We have been trying to get an average year-everybody knows and admits that there are<br />
exceptional years-there may be one year in which yon say yon woul(l get GO bushels to the ::tere-<strong>of</strong><br />
cOiu·se the calculation between 60 bushels and 26 makes all the additional <strong>of</strong> the 60 over the 25 clear pr<strong>of</strong>it,<br />
assuming the expenses to be the same-<strong>of</strong> course some <strong>of</strong> the expenses increase and some do not, but there<br />
may be another year in which the yield may be. only fifteen bushels, and that would be an exceptional year<br />
in the opposite direction '1-Yes.<br />
50615. Therefore, for the pnqrse <strong>of</strong> our investigation we asked you to name an average year?<br />
-Yes.<br />
50616. And I understood you to tell me, when I commenced the inquiry, that 35 bushels<br />
per acre might be taken as the fair average yield <strong>of</strong> the district, and you afterwards reduced it to 25<br />
bushels as the yieltl <strong>of</strong> yom own farm. Mr. Longmore's inquiries were all based upon 25<br />
bnshels per acre :tH the yield, >tml mine upon 35-now which is the correct one to be taken in this<br />
matter ?--Thirty-five; but there are two other matters you have not taken into consideration, that is pease<br />
and potatoes ; tlmt Yaries quite differently from the oats. Pease will bring from 6d. to Is. more per<br />
bushel.<br />
50617. It woulcl take us far too lcmg to go into each individual item; we took oats as the first upon<br />
the list from which we conlu make a fair estimate <strong>of</strong> the rest ?-Quite so.<br />
50618. Are we to nlll1erstand that 25 bushels is the or,1iuary average yield per acre, or that 35 is?<br />
-Thirty-five.<br />
50619. I want you aml the gentlemen present to elearly understand the position we are in about<br />
that malting in bond business. I am quite snre, from the contradictory nature <strong>of</strong> your replies, that you h;we<br />
not thoroughly understood the position <strong>of</strong> the case. The position is this-after the maltsters have converted<br />
Victorim1 barley into malt for the supply <strong>of</strong> all the <strong>Victoria</strong>n brewers, they naturally look round to do a<br />
business outside the colony ?-Yes.<br />
600:20, After they ·have supplied the whole <strong>of</strong> the colony with your barley grown here, they look<br />
for a business outside to keep their malt houses going, and they try to find a market in Sydney and<br />
Adelaide, <strong>of</strong> course for your barley, in the first instance-it is yonr barley they are working with ; but<br />
when they go to those markets they find that they are 1i1et there with malt made in New Zealand from New<br />
Zealand barley, which can be put upon the Sydney and Adelaide markets cheaper than you can put your<br />
barley upon the same markets. Consequently they are beaten out <strong>of</strong> tho1>e outside markets. It does not<br />
affect you here in the lenst, nor the <strong>Victoria</strong>n market, when (to enable them to compete with New Zealand<br />
malt made from New Zealand bm·ley in Sydney and Adelaide') they ask that they may be allowed to operate<br />
upon that same barley for those marker.s, not for your market, nor to affect you in the least. They ask<br />
that they may be pet·mitted to bring that New Zettland barley here, convert it into malt in the time when<br />
they are not occupied in converting your barley for om owu people, and send it away to compete with New<br />
Zealand in Sydney and Adeluide. Now are yon under the impression that that would affect your business<br />
as a grower <strong>of</strong> barley for the <strong>Victoria</strong>n m!trket ?-No, so long as the <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley is all consumed in<br />
<strong>Victoria</strong> or elsewhere.<br />
50621. Now let me ask you this-you say" so long as the whole <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley is consumed<br />
in <strong>Victoria</strong> or elsewhere" ?-Yes.<br />
50622. Up to the present time the <strong>Victoria</strong>n growers have not reacheLl that point that they have got a<br />
surplus to send elsewhere, or it is a very small surplus. Supposing the <strong>Victoria</strong>n maltsters have used up as<br />
much <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley as supplies all the <strong>Victoria</strong>n brewers, and there is a surplus to send elsewhere,<br />
they cannot send it elsewhere to other markets, for they are beaten by New Zealand barley-you wonkl not<br />
get it sent there except at a lower price which will compete with the New Zealand price; because you have<br />
a duty upon it which enables you to get a higher price in <strong>Victoria</strong>, that does not enable you to get' a higher<br />
price abroad than other people take abroad, and your barley will not command in Sydney aml Adelaide the<br />
same price as you get here ?-So long as it does not interfere with the <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley I should not object to it.<br />
50G23. So long as it does not affect your disposing <strong>of</strong> yonr barley to <strong>Victoria</strong>n brewers at the rate<br />
you get now ?-Yes.<br />
50624. It is impossible for it to interfere with your price for the duty prevents that. If after<br />
malting the foreign barley in bond that malt were to be sold in <strong>Victoria</strong> in competition with <strong>Victoria</strong>n malt,<br />
yon would luwe your prices reduced by the competition ?-Yes.<br />
50625. But that could not possibly be put upon the <strong>Victoria</strong>n market without paying dnty first.<br />
Now under those cicenmstances have you any objection ?-No, no objection at all so long as the <strong>Victoria</strong>n<br />
barley is not interfered with.<br />
50620. By Mr. L11clntyre.-Will you tell the Commission please, Vi' hat the 500 acres <strong>of</strong> land that<br />
you first took up here cost you-was it taken up ?-Bought at auction.<br />
50627. What did it cost per acre ?-Five pounds.<br />
50628. By 111T. f.obb.-In regard to this barley, I do not think you understand the question right,<br />
now-excuse me for saying SQ.; will you tell the Commission what is the price you have been getting for<br />
barley, say the last three or four years-what was it last year ?-Four shilliui!s.<br />
50629. \'Vhat was it the vear before ?-It was uot. so much the vear before.<br />
50G30. Would not it in yonr opinion be f~tr better to preveJtt ·this malting in bond so that when<br />
barley is a low price hero it should 110t encoumge other countries to sE>nd it here, so that our barley might<br />
be consumed for the purpose <strong>of</strong> sending to other colonies ?-Yes, but if we have not a surplus.<br />
V<br />
50031. But we have a surplus sometimeti ?-But I understood the Chairman to say that it was not to<br />
interfere.
1499<br />
The Cftairrnan.-Quitc right.<br />
50632. B.!J Jllh. Woods.-Ca:n you compete with New Zoaiand barley here ?-No.<br />
50633. If you cannot compete with it here, can you expect to compete vvith it in Sydney or Adelaide<br />
plu!Sthe carriage ?.......:..No.<br />
50634. Then under those circumstances can there he any objection to employ <strong>Victoria</strong>nlabom to<br />
work up foreign material so long us that forei"'n materiaJ is not put upon the <strong>Victoria</strong>n market?-No<br />
objection. ""<br />
50.635. By the Clwirman.-If.ave you anything you wish to add ?-No, nothing further.<br />
The tvitness witltd1·ew.<br />
Hemy Louis Galbn1ith sworn and examined.<br />
R. S. Grah!llJl,<br />
Esq., J.P.,<br />
tJotainued,<br />
12th May 1883,<br />
50636. By the Clwi·rman.-\Vhat a1·e you ?-A tenant farmer. H. L. Gn.lurutth,<br />
50637. How many acres does your farm holding contain ?-Two hundred and sixty rented, and 12 thMaylSsa.<br />
about sixtv freehold.<br />
50G38. That is 320 altogether ?-Yes.<br />
50639. How much <strong>of</strong> that do you cultivate ?-About 230 acres.<br />
50640. What crops do you priitcipally grow ?-Ofits, pettse, barley, and potatoes.<br />
50641. Did you hear the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Graham ?-Part <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
50642. Have you any objection to the removnl <strong>of</strong> the dnty from wheat and flour ?-Individually I<br />
have not, because in Lancefield we do not grow much wheat, we arc not now a wheat-producing district,<br />
but it interferes with the protective ririnciples <strong>of</strong> the country, aucll oppose its being clone ..<br />
50643. Did yotl hear Mr. Graham's evidence upon the question <strong>of</strong> oats ?-Part <strong>of</strong> 1t.<br />
50644. Do you agree with his evidence ati far as you have heard it ?-No.<br />
50645. Have you an objection to the removal <strong>of</strong> the duty from oats ?-A decided objection.<br />
. 50646. How many bushels <strong>of</strong> oats to the acre will. yonr laud yield upon the average ?-It is rather<br />
a uifficult question to answer, but I wonld not cultivate land that would only produce 25 bushels to the<br />
acre. It would not pay for a threshing machine, which is the best test. My land has prodtlced GO bushels<br />
to the acre for three years. .<br />
50647. We have the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Gralmm that 35 bushels to the a,cre <strong>of</strong> oats i~ the average<br />
yield <strong>of</strong> the district, is that according to your experience ?-:For Lancefi-eld propel' it is much below the<br />
average. If you go outside to Newham, and to the outside loamy lands, it might be the average.<br />
50648. What would it he for Lancefield proper, as you term it ?-I cannot say, about 45, the way<br />
we cultivate our ground. It all depends upon the way yon cultivate. One man may get 60, and another<br />
man my not get 30. ·<br />
50649. Did you hem· the list <strong>of</strong> expenses given by }\fr. Graham for the cultivation <strong>of</strong> an acre <strong>of</strong><br />
oats ?-Yes.<br />
50650. Is that correct, according to your experie_nee ?-I differ a little, not much. I say about 14s.<br />
an 11Cl'C would cover ploughing, harrowing, and rolling, but ad to sowing, it all depends upon whether you<br />
are sowing for hay or for crop. Of course, for hay, you put on much more t.ha,n you do for an oat crop •<br />
. 50651. Mr. Graham's total comcH to £2 1Ss., without any item for rent or manure, is that your<br />
experience ?-~I heard part <strong>of</strong> that, and I would say 14s. 11n acre for ploughing, harrowing, and rolling.<br />
50135:l. That is 1s. 6cl., more than he puts down leaving out cost <strong>of</strong> twice ploughing and<br />
perhaps twice grubbing, as I frequently do, and the rent <strong>of</strong> my farm is 12s. !)d. an acre; some people pay as<br />
high as 15s.; I have paid £1 rtud I8s. As to reaping, I tl.gree with him.<br />
50653. And as to threshing, lls. ?-That depends upon the amount <strong>of</strong> your crop, say £1 a hundred, it<br />
is hardly £1, and then you get seconds that they do not charge for.<br />
There are a lot <strong>of</strong> things to be<br />
considered.<br />
50654. By M1·. Longmore.-Yotl pay for all the la hour ?-We pay for all the labour, and feed the<br />
men. It does not come to £2.<br />
50655. By tAe Chairnum.-Not £2 a hundred ?-No, about 30::>. '' hundred I put it down at.<br />
50fi5G. Then the carriage 5s. ?-That is the railway.<br />
50657. Bags cost you more ?-~That has nothing to do, I snppo~e, with this Cm:nmbsion, it is a gre11t<br />
grievance to l,hc farmer.<br />
50658. First <strong>of</strong> all we are at the cost <strong>of</strong> production ?-You eau put tlown the bags at from Ss. to 10s.;<br />
they vary. in price; I think !lB. to 10s. is a fair average.<br />
50()59. And the expenses in town ?-It eosLs me about 4~d. a bushel, inclu1liug railway freight;<br />
weighing, receiving, and delivering at the store, whieh is about 2d. a bag, and 2d. the charges and railway<br />
freight, come to about He!. a bushel.<br />
50660. By llfr. Longmore.-There is carriage from the railway to t.he fMm, 5s.?-Tlutt is not 5s.,<br />
about 4s. from my fm·m, and more or less according ti) distance from rnilwny.<br />
50661. By the Clwi1·man.-Do you reckon anything for manure ?-I think I have paid abont as mueh<br />
for artificial manmc, barring one farmer, as any man in the district. I pnt ontLS much as G cwt. to the acre.<br />
50G6:.!. By .Mr. Longmore.-Bonc dust?-Yes, nml other 11rtificial manures.<br />
5066;3. By the Cltairman.-'vVhat do you reckon your expemlitnre per acre, upon the rtYcrage, to be<br />
in order to get 60 bnshels ?-That is a question almost impossible to auswer; it all depends upon the way<br />
you work your farm. I subsoil my land, ru1cl my neighbour may work differently from me, and it is almost<br />
impossible to say what it costs upon the average.<br />
50G6±. Would !Os. an acre be a fair estimate <strong>of</strong> the expenditure for manure ?-I do not think there<br />
is a farmer in the district, barring two, that ever goes to a halfpenny <strong>of</strong> expense in it. I have used as much<br />
as 50s. worth per acre.<br />
50GG5. Then we can leave that out. In what respect do you disagree with .Mr. Gmhmn in the<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> oats ?-I disagree with him about the average quantity on the good farms <strong>of</strong> Lancefield.<br />
50666. You do not disagree with him as to the advisability <strong>of</strong> retaining the Llnty ?-I mn thoroughly<br />
in favour <strong>of</strong> retaining the duty.<br />
50667. Would it be a. serious injury to the farming industry if the dnty wcrerednccd to one-half and<br />
pnt bacl\: to what it waj> l!l 1879 ?-! O[!,lJ(lf St:ty yes or po (,0 that question! bnt I ORII tell yon, ft,S a. practical
Fl.J-.G!'loraith, farmer, that I have returns here from my salesman for the years 1878,1879, 1880, and 1881. Now, inl880<br />
titf'~:;:"faa3 . I bought as good seed oats as the eye <strong>of</strong> man ever looked upon at ls. 10d. a bushel, bags given in. They<br />
·· were bought at public auction in this district.<br />
50668. Hy lvlr. Lon,qmore.-Ancl ordinary oats at 1s. Gd.?-Yes, or less, 1s. 3d.<br />
50669. By the Chainnan.-Were those colonial-grown'?- They were colonial-grown and by<br />
Mr. W. Grant in this district. Now I know the man that grew those must have grown them ut, a loss.<br />
50670. That is after the duty was put on ?-It was the year after the duty wa~ put on, while the<br />
stores in Melbourne were glutted; they had not been cleared out <strong>of</strong> New Zealand oats. We did not participate<br />
in the benefit <strong>of</strong> the duties till the following year, because they shunted all their stuff into Melbourne,<br />
and the stores wero glutt.ecl, and that had to be worked <strong>of</strong>f before we got the advantage <strong>of</strong> it. In 1880 I ·<br />
sold pease ~tt 2s. 2cl. a bushel, barley at ls. 7d.-Cape barley. At the end <strong>of</strong> the season they did rise to<br />
5s. 2cl. for some English barley, but at the en,rly part <strong>of</strong> the season it was nbout 2s. 2d., and I sold<br />
later on at 4~. 6d. This account is from D. :Melville n,nd Company. In 1879, oats ranged from 3s. 2c1. to<br />
4s. 2d.; in 1880, from 1s. 5~d. to 2s. 4d.; and in 1881 m\ts were 2s. 3!d. to 4s. I will give you the price<br />
<strong>of</strong> harlev also. In 1881 it went from 2s. 3.,!,d. to 3s. lld.<br />
50671. What is it now ?-I sold it tl1is year, 400 or 500 bags, at 5s. 2d. I see by the papers l1ere<br />
the evidence <strong>of</strong> Mr. Clapp and other gentlemen before your Commission about oats. I sold him 795 bags<br />
<strong>of</strong>' oats at 3s. 2d. on Tuesday last ; they were a splendid sample <strong>of</strong> oats.<br />
50672. Wlmt did he say in his evidence the price w~\S ; does that agree with his evidence ?-Yes,<br />
his evidence is fair enough as far as it goes ; but I see some evidence here from Mr. McKenzie, I think it<br />
is. He says the duty upon oats ought to be reduced ; he thought it should not be more than 6d. a bushel;<br />
at pre:;entit is 2s. tL cental. He had to buy New Zettland oats, which he dealt with in bond, exporting the<br />
oatmeal. Now, in that matter <strong>of</strong> oatmeal in bond, I believe that the Custom.s revenue <strong>of</strong> the colony has<br />
been "got at," to use a common expression, because they weigh in 40 lbs. <strong>of</strong> oats to the bushel ·am! they<br />
weigh out 40 lbs. <strong>of</strong> oatmeal, and they allow nothing for the debris, and the revenue is defrauded to that extent.<br />
50673. By iYJ.r. Longm,ore.-Ancl the oatmeal is about only 20 lbs. to the bushel ?-They weigh in<br />
40 lbs. and they weigh out 40 lbs.<br />
50674. By the Chai1·nwn.-But you are not sure <strong>of</strong> that ?-I am pretty sure <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
50675. You are only giving us a supposition ?-I have it from a gentleman who has pretty good<br />
knowledge.<br />
50676. You cannot give second-hand evidence? -I ttm not a miller, <strong>of</strong> course. Now barley comes<br />
in 50 lbs. and goes out 40 lbs. in malt; but they should send out 50 lbs. in malt. As to malting in bond, I<br />
am decidedly opposed to 1t.<br />
50677. Whn,t do you say <strong>of</strong> malt ?-Fifl,y lbs. comes in and 50 lbs. goes out.<br />
50678. But there is nothing at all upon it ?-I believe they are doing it at the present time. They<br />
sell our good barley and shunt away the bad stuff. I wish to return to the oat question. I see th~tt some <strong>of</strong><br />
the gentlemen here who gave evidence, I think it is Mr. Aitkin, said that our oats are not good enough to<br />
make oatmeal <strong>of</strong>, that the New Zealand oats are a much superior (l.rticle·to ours.<br />
50679. For that purpose ?-For that purpose.<br />
50680. Is that in accordance with your experience ?~In the great show <strong>of</strong> the world our oats took<br />
the premier position ~·t the Exhibition; and I see Mr. Gibson has given his evidence here, but he ha~ not<br />
said anything upon that point; but he has been in the trade for some thirty years, I think, and he told me<br />
himself that my oats grown in Lancefield (that he bought one day, through Donalcl Melville and Company,<br />
400 or 500 bags, allCl he bougllt :Mr. J. ,J. Daly's, a neighbour <strong>of</strong> mine, whose oats took the premier position<br />
at the show) would give from 5 lbs. to 7 lbs. more ontmeal--thttt is oats from L(l.ncefield--than you could<br />
get from New Zealnncl; and he gave as his reason that ours was finer in the skin and there was less waste.<br />
It has been <strong>of</strong>ten said that we cannot grow oats for milling. That is :Mr. Gibson's evidence to myself, after<br />
having bought my oats and Mr. J. J. Daly's oats the same year.<br />
506tsl. I think that is enough in relation to the question <strong>of</strong> oats. Now about the question <strong>of</strong> barley?<br />
-I would like to call yonr attention to this about oats. Mr. Derham: says, in his evidence, at present<br />
imported oats are worth from 2s. 6d. to 2~. Rd. in bond and tlmt ours are worth 3s. 4cl. I sold mine at<br />
3s. 2d. "This was not," he was informed, "an oat-growing country." We can grow quite enough for our<br />
own people.<br />
50682. Thi,; part <strong>of</strong> the country, we quite understand, is suitable for oats ?-Yes, and so is<br />
Kyneton, and eo is B[tllarat, and so is Gippsland. Anythiug south <strong>of</strong> the Dividing range is oat-growing<br />
country.<br />
50683. As to barley,'[ understand that you are opposed to the removttl <strong>of</strong> the duty upon barley?-<br />
I am decidedly. ·<br />
50684. Are we producing as much barley in the colony as we require for our own purposes?<br />
I believe so, and we can produce any an1otmt, for, uorzh <strong>of</strong> the DiYidiug range, .as fine barley can be grown<br />
as anywhere in the world.<br />
50685. See:ng that we have very nearly, if not quite, overtaken our own requirements, and shall<br />
shortly have a surplus to export, is there nny purpose to he served by keeping the duty any longer ?-I call<br />
that rather a leading question, but I will answer it. I say we can grow plenty <strong>of</strong> barley if the price is<br />
good enough, if they will give us, stty, 5s. a bushel. I do not care to see it higher, ancll would not like<br />
t:o see it lower; I would go in for a sliding scale. If barley gets above that, reduce the dnty. It is a<br />
pnying price to the farmer, (l.ncl a small price will not pay him. We can grow plenty <strong>of</strong> it if they will only<br />
give us the price.<br />
50686. B;lj Jlit·. Longmm·e.-Is that malting barley ?-Yes, malting barley. I got 5s. 2d. this year.<br />
50687. By the Clwirman.-You approve <strong>of</strong> a sliding scale ?-I approve <strong>of</strong> a sliding scale ; they<br />
do it <strong>of</strong>ten in letth1g farms where I CIHne from. I do not think they should go 11p to fa,mine prices. But<br />
I wish to give one <strong>of</strong> my re>t80ns for opposing malting in bond.<br />
50688. I nnderstoocl that you were going to give the reason~ why you oppose the abolition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
duty ?-The abolitiun <strong>of</strong> the duty I think I have givcu a re£Lson against, that we can gww it ourselves.<br />
But in New Zeabntl they get much henvier crop.s than we do, and they are bound, a:,; ftn as I know <strong>of</strong> the<br />
colony, to break UIJ the land to put in English grasses, and they have no market ot their own, and they are<br />
bound to send it to Ylctoria.<br />
1500
1501<br />
50689. Are you opposed to the malting in bond ?-Yes., entirely.<br />
50690. Upon what grounds ?-There are various grounds. Perhaps you might rule some <strong>of</strong> them<br />
out <strong>of</strong> onler, beea11Se I cannot give them out <strong>of</strong> my own actual knowledge. Bnt I can give this out <strong>of</strong> my<br />
o>l;n actual knowledge, that they can go and buy IL few thousand bags just when the farmers are rushing<br />
and bonnd to seml to market for want <strong>of</strong> money to pay for harvesting and threshing.<br />
50691. Wbo do this ?-The maltsters and middlemen.<br />
50692. Go where ?-To New Zealand and buy a few thousand- bags and be independent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Victoria</strong>n farmer.<br />
50693. How independent ?-They buy stuff to keep them going, and supposing they do happen to<br />
sell at a litt.le loss to their <strong>Victoria</strong>n customers, it enables them Go supply those <strong>Victoria</strong>n customers foe the<br />
time b9ing, and clown comes the <strong>Victoria</strong>n marl\ et.<br />
50694. But they cannot supply the <strong>Victoria</strong>n customers without paying the duty fiTst ?-T admit<br />
th~ -<br />
50695. !f the bmley had to pay duty before it eame into competition with you, what harm is done<br />
to the <strong>Victoria</strong>n grower ?-It enables them to mop up all the barley. They can get at i1 low price, antl they<br />
can send out an inferior barley as being malted in bond, and they sell the best here.<br />
50696. But it would not do you harm to send out the inferior stuff-it goes to Sydney and Adelaide?<br />
-I consider it does us harm.<br />
50697. Do you expect that you ean secure the sale in the Sydney and Adelaide marl,<br />
{;()nlinued,<br />
12th lllay Isaa.
H. L. GalbmiLb 1<br />
continued~<br />
12th lllayl883.<br />
1502<br />
coulLl give you now would be unreliable, and I woi1ld not make an answer that I would not substantiate.<br />
It would not be fair either to you or myself.<br />
50720. By Mr. Longmore.-The question <strong>of</strong> rent, <strong>of</strong> com,se, interests every farmer who goes upon<br />
land, who has not laud <strong>of</strong> his own. ·would it pay you to give a rent for land to grow 25 bushels <strong>of</strong> oats to<br />
the acre ?-No, I would not cultivate such land.<br />
50721. From Haytcr's statistics we find that the average last year was 24 bushels to the acre, and<br />
9~ bushels <strong>of</strong> wheat. Would it pay yon to pay rent fo1· any land that would grow that ?-It might pay<br />
this way, that you pay the Government Is. an acre for twenty years.<br />
50722. Would it pay you to pay your present rent?-No, decidedly not<br />
50723. By Mr. JJ[unro.-You were going to say something about bags jnst now. What was it?<br />
The grMt grievance <strong>of</strong> the farmer is, that the middleman in town gets the bags weighed in ; we pay lOd.<br />
for the bags, and I do not believe we get lid. for them .<br />
.'50724. That is not a matter connected with the Customs?-We care nothing ltbout the duty, the<br />
duty is nothing. .<br />
50725. Is not that a matter that the farrHers could regulate for themselves ?-If they stuck together<br />
and had a combination they could. But the farmers will not combine.<br />
50726. About malting in bond, do you know <strong>of</strong> your own knowledge whether there is any colonial<br />
barley or malt exported ?-0£ my own knowledge I cannot answer you, it is only hearsay.<br />
50727. By the ChaiTman.-Have you any statement to make to the Commission ?-I heard you ask<br />
:M:r. Gralmm about farming implemencs and the dnty upon farming implements. As a farmer, I am quite in<br />
favour <strong>of</strong> a duty being retained upon all agricultural implements that ea.n be manufactured in the colony ;<br />
but what we cannot manufactme or produce, I tbink ought to come in as free as possible, except for revenue<br />
purposes. I do not speak upon that subject authoritatively, but I think the agriculturalists prefer the colonial<br />
implements to the imported, aml they would not have the imported at a gift. I gave £26 for a plough no later<br />
than Tuesday last. I would add that upon my 320 acres, <strong>of</strong> which I cultivate 230 acres; I employ an average<br />
<strong>of</strong> nine men per week per annum. Each and every one <strong>of</strong> those men pays through the Cnstom-house and<br />
contributes to the revenue <strong>of</strong> the colony. You can go here and see twenty square miles, not very far from<br />
here, with one man per week per annum.<br />
50728. By 1Jf1·. JJ1cintyre.-What wages do you pay the nine men upon the farm ?-They vary ; £1<br />
a week and their food, and 17s. a week and their food.<br />
50729. None less than I7s.?-No.<br />
50730. Then the average is about 18s. Gd. a week ?-About that.<br />
50731. By Nr. llfunro.-Have you any scarcity <strong>of</strong> labour?-No, but labour has not been so<br />
plentiful as it was some years ago. I really think we could very well afford to introduce some more labour,<br />
but I have no scarcity ; it greatly depends upon how the farmer treats his men.<br />
50732. Then you would be in favour <strong>of</strong> immigration ?-Individually I would be, although I have<br />
had no scarcity.<br />
50733. But you would have no objection to immigration?-Personally none. I think we want population.<br />
T!te ~vitness withdrew.<br />
Willlmn Wllson,<br />
E•q.,<br />
12tll :Mny lS89,<br />
William Wilson, Esq., President <strong>of</strong> the Shire <strong>of</strong> Romsey, sworn and examiuetl.<br />
50734. By tho ClbaiTman.-What are you ?-A farmer and grazier.<br />
50735. How many acres does your holding contain ?-Over 1,200 altogether.<br />
50736. How many do you cultivate ?-I average from 80 to 120.<br />
50737. Say lOO-what do you grow principally ?-The general erops that the other gentlemen grow,<br />
oats, pease, barley, and potatoes.<br />
50738. What use do you put the rest <strong>of</strong> the land to ?-Grazing and dairying.<br />
50739. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witnesses ?-I did not hear all Mr. Graham's; I<br />
heard Mr. Galbraith's.<br />
50740. And a portion <strong>of</strong> Mr. Graham's?-Yes.<br />
50741. Have you anything to add to the information t.hose gentlemen gave us ?-As regards the<br />
average upon oats from ten years I calculate the average at 28 bushels to the acre.<br />
50742. That is from ten years <strong>of</strong> your own experience?-Yes.<br />
50743. Is vour land rented or freehold ?-I have one block rented from Government. Of course I<br />
pay them 2s. an a~re until it is cleared, and I have a block rented that belongs to my wife's father, but it is<br />
tt private arrangement ; it is a very small rental and I may call it freehold.<br />
50744. Do you get 320 acres from the Government ?-No, it is only 144.<br />
50745. That is included in the 1,200 acres it is over 1,200.<br />
5074G. Is it part <strong>of</strong> the 144 acres that yon cultivate ?-No.<br />
507-±7. Did the previous witnesses leave unstated anything that you think it is material to say in the<br />
interests <strong>of</strong> the farmers iu this Llistrict l-~No, I did not remark anything at the time that I would add to<br />
their evidence.<br />
50748. Nothing that you would disagree with ?-No.<br />
50749. Then I may say that you agree with the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witnesses ?-In<br />
general.<br />
50750. In relation to the operation <strong>of</strong> the tariff, and the necessity for retaining the duties ?<br />
Yes, by all means. I would add, that in calcnlating what it actually costs us to produce an acre <strong>of</strong> crops<br />
there are hundreds <strong>of</strong> items that we cannot take into consideration.<br />
50751. By M1·. llfclntyre.-How long have you been f[~rmiug in this country ?-Twenty-one years.<br />
I would place the estimate <strong>of</strong> growi11g an acre higher than any <strong>of</strong> the other witnesses did ; I think they<br />
are below the estimate.<br />
50752. Y on have been twenty-one years growing crops here-how many acres dill you st>wt with<br />
as farmer and grazier ?-One hundred and sixty.<br />
50753. And you have gradually in·creased your holding to 1,200 acres, less 144 that you lease from<br />
the Crown ?-There is 220 acres <strong>of</strong> that thfl.t do not belong to me by right.<br />
50754, That is 364 acres <strong>of</strong>f the 1,200-is that eo ?-Yes,
1503<br />
50755. Thn.t leaves you 836 acres <strong>of</strong> your own freehold '?-Yes, it is about that. Wlllinm Wllson,<br />
50756. What do you estimate the value <strong>of</strong> that freehold at ?-I do not estimate it at over £3 or £4 .,0 ,~t~~~.<br />
an acre. 12th Muy 1883.<br />
50757. Then yom land is not so good as Mr. Graham's ?-No, it is not.<br />
507 58. Have you auy idt?a <strong>of</strong> the total outlay upon your 120 acres that you cultivated last year ?<br />
The outlay upon that, as far as I can remember, was between £300 and £400.<br />
50759. For the 120 acres ?-Yes.<br />
50760. Could you tell the income from it ?-I could not tell the income from it, but I could tell the<br />
income from the whole.<br />
50761. But you have not a, separate account <strong>of</strong> that ?-The income from that year you can hardly<br />
take as a just estimate; I may have grown this year and may hold over till next year.<br />
50762. But vou can tell us the value <strong>of</strong> what vou have in hand from last year's crops ?-I can<br />
hardly tell. " "<br />
50763. By the Cl~airman.-You reckon 120 acres produced upon the average 28 bushels to the<br />
acre?-Yes, taking the various crops and averaging them all round.<br />
50764. By Mr. 1Jfum·o.-Are you in favom <strong>of</strong> malting in bond ?-If it could be carried out honestly;<br />
but I have been told they bring in an inferior kind <strong>of</strong> grain, and that goes into competition with our oats<br />
as feed.<br />
50765. By the Ghairman.-It could not possibly come out <strong>of</strong> bond and come into competition with<br />
you without paying duty ?-Our oats go out, and a quantity come in <strong>of</strong> an inferior class. A quantity <strong>of</strong><br />
ours go out, and they get a drawback upon it. ·<br />
50766. There has no U.rawback ever been allowed ?-[No answer.]<br />
50767. By llfr. Jlfum·o.-'Ne are now referring to barley. Supposing New Zealand. barley came<br />
in <strong>of</strong> an inferior quality, do you mean to say that our <strong>Victoria</strong>n-grown barley would be made mto malt and<br />
exported in lieu <strong>of</strong> the inferior barley that came from New Zealand ?-That is just what I mean.<br />
50768. Is the barley that we grow here superior to the barley they grow in New Zealand?<br />
I cannot answer that question.<br />
50769. Do you know, <strong>of</strong> your own knowlcdO'e, that there is imported from New Zealaud inferior<br />
barley, or barl.cy <strong>of</strong> a certain class ?-I have read in °the newspapers tlutt it comes in here as horse-feed, and<br />
onrs goes out, and they get the drawback, and that is equal to bringing in the other duty free.<br />
50770. Tell me this a.s a farmer and as a practical man, would there be any means <strong>of</strong> tletecting, after<br />
the barley was imported and converted into malt, whether it was <strong>Victoria</strong>n-grown or New Zealand-grown?<br />
-I do not know that there would be.<br />
50771. Could an expert tell which was which ?-I really could not tell.<br />
50772. Then if we were to 11llow malting in bond, what check would the Customs have upon their<br />
substituting or exporting <strong>Victoria</strong>n-grown barley in lieu <strong>of</strong> New Zealand, which they have importedwould<br />
there be any means <strong>of</strong> checking it ?-The only means I see is keeping a watch over it o.ll the<br />
time.<br />
50773. Have you any scarcity <strong>of</strong> labonr ?-At present, no ; I have had.<br />
5077±. fbd you last season ?-I woultllike emigration if it was the right kind.<br />
50775. You would be in favour <strong>of</strong> importing labour ?-Yes, <strong>of</strong> the right kind, but not<br />
incliscrimiJ!atel y. .<br />
50776. What would you consider the right kind ?-Agricultural labourers and tlomestics.<br />
50777. Domestic servants ?-Yes.<br />
50778. You would not be in favour <strong>of</strong> free immigration ?-Not the clearing <strong>of</strong> the workhouses at<br />
home.<br />
50779. You would like to have the passages reduced to a low rate, so that working men could come<br />
out here ?-I believe in the principle <strong>of</strong> those here helping thelr friends to come out, so that we should get<br />
the proper quality.<br />
50780. Are you in favom <strong>of</strong> the duty upon implements ?-Yes, if I can get a good price for what<br />
I grow, I am very willing to give a good price to local Mtieans.<br />
5078 I. By JJ:[!'. Woods.-! suppose in your importation <strong>of</strong> labour you would include the importation<br />
<strong>of</strong> doctors, lawyers, parsons, and financiers, would you not ?-I think there are too many <strong>of</strong> them in the<br />
()Olony already.<br />
50782. B,y M1·. Long more.-Do you find farm servants getting rich beyond those that employ them?<br />
-No, but the case is this, because they are scarce you cannot get them to act properly. The more scarce<br />
they are, the lesR work you can get them to do.<br />
50783. B;IJ Mr. Woods-They talk about eivht hours to you now and then, do they ?-Yes.<br />
50784. By MT. Longmote.-Yon want to g~t them at a gootl price ?-'.No, but, as I say about the<br />
artisans, if I get a good price I would give them o.. good price.<br />
50785. And if you have not wol'k for them, <strong>of</strong> course you send them about their business ?-It is<br />
not likely I should keep them.<br />
50786. In refereucc to the malting <strong>of</strong> barley in bond, do you know that New Zealand barley is<br />
malted in a separate malt-house from :1ll other barley ?-No, I was not t1Ware how they managed it.<br />
50787. Have you heard that it was so ?-All that I heard is that they brought in an inferior class,<br />
which they would not use for malt, and which is used as horse-feed.<br />
50788. Have you ever heard there was a malting-house appointed specially for grain that came into<br />
the colony ?-No.<br />
50'789. From what you say, I take it you believe that they buy an inferior article at a very low<br />
price in New Zealand, and pay the duty upon it, <strong>of</strong> course; but you believe they send out our barley and<br />
get a drawback upon it ?-I have been told so-I clo not know the tricks <strong>of</strong> the trade.<br />
50790. By the Cltairrnan.-Do you know the difference between malting in bond ancl being allowed<br />
a drawback upon malt that has paid duty as baTlcy ?-No, I do not know the difference.<br />
50791. You know that there arc two different ways <strong>of</strong> dealing with this question that are under<br />
·discussion. You sometimes hear <strong>of</strong> it spoken <strong>of</strong> aB malting in bond and sometimes as a drawback, do you<br />
not?-Yes, .
WJiliam Wi!Bon,<br />
.;,;;:!.~rt.<br />
1504<br />
50792. Do you know that if the malting in bond is allowed, there will have to be a separate apartment<br />
in every malt house that, nndertakes the malting in honcl, in which the malting <strong>of</strong> foreign barley will<br />
12th liiay 1883. be carried on separate from the <strong>Victoria</strong>n barley, under the supervision <strong>of</strong> a Government locker, who would<br />
have to see that no evasion <strong>of</strong> the Customs took place. Are you aware <strong>of</strong> that ?-No, I do not know what<br />
arrangement they have. .<br />
50793. Then you do not know what malting in bond is?-Yes, I have an idea.<br />
50794. But, if you did not know that, you hr"ve no idea <strong>of</strong> what malting in bond is ?-I did not<br />
know the regulations under which they carry it out.<br />
50795. What do you suppose malting in bond to be when you are .speaking <strong>of</strong> it~what is your<br />
idea <strong>of</strong> it ?-They are charged duty when the grain comes in, and when the malt goes out they get a<br />
drawback.<br />
50796. That is a drawback regulation, not malting in bond at all. I would like to explain to yo11<br />
and to the ot,her gentlemen present that there are these two modes proposell <strong>of</strong> dealing >Y1th this matter; the<br />
Robert Blrney,<br />
Esq., J.P ..<br />
l2tll May 1883.<br />
one is very different from the other. The law, as it :1t present stands, allows almost every kind <strong>of</strong> manufacture<br />
to be carried on with foreign articles, either in bond or by means <strong>of</strong> a drawback. Sometimes it is<br />
1505<br />
50807. Is that what you want to add to the evidence <strong>of</strong> previous witnesses ?-I will answer any<br />
question that is put to me. I do not want malting in bond. ·<br />
50808. So far I understand you ?-I understand malting in bond thoroughly welL I. did not hear<br />
~U the evidence given. I only came in when Mr. Galbraith was being examined. I am agamst malting in<br />
bond, and I am against oats going out on drawback. I am a farmer since I was born, and to say that we<br />
cannot grow oats fit to make meal is an absurdity.<br />
50809. By 1.Wr. Woods.-Are you aware that bonded goods go from Melbourne to Echuca ?-Yes,<br />
and are sent over the border there.<br />
50810. And they go iu bond ?-I believe so.<br />
50811. How do they go ?-I do not know-is there a Customs <strong>of</strong>ficer watching them?<br />
50812. Do they go along with any other goods ?-I do not know; I suppose they go in the train.<br />
50813. Do they go in the same trucks with any other goods? -I could not say <strong>of</strong> my own<br />
knowledge.<br />
. 50814. You are not aware that those goods that go through the colony to go across the Border are<br />
m a separate truck, locked up and sealed ?-No, I am not. .<br />
50815. Exactly the same principle applies to malting in bond, the goods never mu at all ?-When<br />
we had malting in bond we did not get the full price for our barley. .<br />
50816 . . BY. ~Wr. J1fwnro.-You are in favour <strong>of</strong> the duty remaining as it is ?-Mo~t decidedly I a~;<br />
I am a protectwmst.<br />
them.<br />
Why cannot these men go and live in New Zealand, and take their malt-houses w1th<br />
[The witness produced samples <strong>of</strong> grain gro·wn by him.]<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
John Hurst, Esq., J.P., sworn and examined.<br />
50817. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-A farmer.<br />
50818. How many acres do you have in your holding ?-Two thousand.<br />
50819. How many do you cultivate ?-Only 40 last year.<br />
50820. You graze the rest ?-Y Eos.<br />
50821. You heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witness ?-Yes.<br />
50822. Will you state to the Commission what you wish to add to that evidence, please ?-Yes, I<br />
think I had better begin with the dairying, which is the principal industry that I follow. I object to the<br />
~uty remaining on butter and cheese, I think it is very injurious to the trade, because on the du~y being<br />
Imposed on butter and cheese comin"' into this country. I think it caused duties to be placed on m other<br />
countries, and so impeded trade. Se~eral <strong>of</strong> the colonies have put on exactly the same duty as we have<br />
ourselves.<br />
50823. By JJir. Longmore.-Had they their duties on before we had ?-No, we were the first to<br />
impose the duties, and after we imposed the duties they imposed the duties upon us. At the time we<br />
imposed the duty <strong>of</strong> 2d. a lb., we were exporters <strong>of</strong> only 26,000 lbs. <strong>of</strong> butter per annum, and in 1881 we<br />
exported something like 2,000,000 lbs. within a very small fraction. I can O'ive you the exact returns from<br />
5<br />
the Customs if you desire it.<br />
. 50824. What harm does the butter from the other colonies do you as a manufacturer <strong>of</strong> the article?<br />
In this way. If but,te; sent to o~her colonies is 8d. a lb. in Sydney or Adelaide before the butter I seml<br />
:from here cap. enter their markets, It would be 10c1., consequently I am a loser <strong>of</strong> that 2d. a lb.<br />
50825. No ?-Yes, decidedly; if I could send my butter direct without that extra 2d. being paid at<br />
Sydney or Adelaide, that 2d. or a great portion <strong>of</strong> it, if not the whole <strong>of</strong> it would come to me.<br />
. 50826. You :nean to say that the Sydney people do not pay the 2d. '?-Certainly; I say I have t? pay<br />
It because I export 1t. I am well aware <strong>of</strong>this in the same light as you see it; I am w~ll aware that If the<br />
Sydney people pay 8cl. a lb. I have to sell mine at 6cl. here to go into their market, but If they had not the<br />
2d. a lb. I should get 8d.<br />
50827. They would tell you the very opposite in Sydney; they would say if we had not the 2cl. a lb.<br />
we should only pay 6d. ?-No, I think not.<br />
50828. B,y llir. Longmore.-What power would you have over them ?-By doing my utmost to get<br />
intercolonial free-trade.<br />
50829: By t!te Chairman.-Anytbing else 7-With regard to agricultural imp1em.ents, I am in favour<br />
<strong>of</strong>. all duty bemg. rem~ved from them. I cannot see how we can be expected to compete m the same market<br />
with other colomes w1th the produce from ours while they get their implements free and we have to pay a<br />
heavy duty.<br />
50830. Do you think you would get implements for any less if there were no duty ?-If not, what is<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> the duty?<br />
50831. Do not you see you are arguing just the reverse upon the implements that you do upon the<br />
b~tter. You say if there were no duty in Sydney you would get the 2d. a pound ?-The two cases are<br />
different, one is export and the other is import.<br />
50832. It is export to you, but it is import to them ?-Yes.<br />
. 50833. If you. say that the r~moval <strong>of</strong> the duty upon implements coming into Melbourne w~ll ~ake<br />
Implements cheaper m Melbourne, It would follow that the removal <strong>of</strong> the cluty from butter gomg mto<br />
Sydney mus~ make butter cheaper in Sydney, consequently you would get no bett~r price ,in Sydney for<br />
your butter 1f the duty were removed ?-The English machine makers sending then· machmes here have<br />
that cluty to pay here, and it must necessarily be added to the price het'C,<br />
, 50834. ~s not it t~e same with the butter in Sydney ?-No; it works exactly the same ~ith them<br />
as It works w1th me ; It causes them to send less it diminishes their export and an extra pnce for the<br />
article has to be obtained here. ' '<br />
50835. And you get an extra price for your butter iu Sydney, because <strong>of</strong> the duty? -No; it does not<br />
come to me, the lower price comes to me certainlv. .<br />
50836. By JJ11·. Longmore.-May I ask you whether agricultural implements. are clearer now than<br />
they W';_l'e before the du~y was put on ?-I ~nswer that by saying that the times are.d1fferent. .<br />
o0837. At the tn:ne you speak <strong>of</strong>, Implement factories were not common 1n :Melbourne, with the,<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> very rude implements, which were made at the time, and that is the reason.<br />
T..rniFF.<br />
9 E<br />
Robert :BI111.ey,<br />
Esq., J.P.,<br />
con#nueil,<br />
12th :May lSB3...<br />
JohnHntst,;.<br />
Esq.,J.P.,<br />
12th llfny 18$?,.
John Burst,<br />
Esq.,J.P.,<br />
continued,<br />
12th May 1883.<br />
1506<br />
50838. Have you any idea whether protection caused those implement factories to be started or not?<br />
-I dare say it has caused some <strong>of</strong> them, but it has not caused all <strong>of</strong> them. I knew important factories before<br />
the tariff was put on, and <strong>of</strong> course they started umler free-trade; the others have started since, so I can<br />
scarcely answer that question.<br />
50839. As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, take the reaping machine, do you know whether the reaping machine is<br />
not sold now for a little over half what it was before the duty was on ?-I know that such is the fact.<br />
50840. The world is 5,000 years old, according to some people; but until we made those machines,<br />
we did not get cheap reaping machines ?-That has nothing to do with it.<br />
50841. By lvlr. Mclntyre.-Your business is essentially that <strong>of</strong> a dairyman ?-Principally so.<br />
50842. You make butter and cheese ?-I make butter and cheese. -<br />
50843. And though the system <strong>of</strong> taxation in this country gives you 2d. a lb. upon your production,<br />
you do not desire to keep that tax ?-I desire to see it abolished. What good can it possibly do me when<br />
we are exporting 2,000,000 lbs. weight per annum?<br />
50844. If through this system <strong>of</strong> taxation 2d. a lb. has been put on in Sydney and Adelaide and you<br />
only get the price less 2d. a lb. that the local producer regulates ; but if the tax were taken <strong>of</strong>f, you would<br />
get nearly all that 2d. ?-Not all, but a great portion <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
50845. And the people there would get the benefit <strong>of</strong> the greater supply which you would send there?<br />
-Yes.<br />
50846. Do you produce any bacon ?-~L\. little ; but it is all consumed in the colony.<br />
50847. You do not desire to continue the tax upon bacon, do you ?-I desire no taxes whatever,<br />
except for revenue purposes.<br />
50848. You have got 2,000 acres?-Yes ; it is not all my own.<br />
50849. How much <strong>of</strong> it is freehold ?-Sixteen hundred acres.<br />
50850. How long have you been in this neighbourhood ?-Twenty-three years.<br />
50851. How many acres did you start with ?-Seventy-eight.<br />
50852. And you have gradually increased your land until you have got this large acreage now?-Yes.<br />
50853. You employ a number <strong>of</strong> men, do not you ?-No, I think about eight-that is six men<br />
and two girls. -<br />
50854. Are those employed about the dairy business ?-Yes, dairy and farm, but principally dairy.<br />
50855. How do you pay your dairy people ?-I pay them from 12s. to £1 a week.<br />
50856. A little less than farm labourers, who get from, say from 17s. 6d. to £1 a week and are<br />
found ?-Yes.<br />
50857. Is a large area <strong>of</strong> this land fit for cultivation?-Yes.<br />
50858. How many out <strong>of</strong> the 1,600 acres are your own ?-I think from 600 to 800.<br />
50859. And you find a dairy to be the best paying purpose you can turn it to; is that so ?-No; I<br />
worked the dairy at a considerable loss during the cheap period <strong>of</strong> three years, which ended two years.<br />
50860. When you were working at a loss did you hold the same opinion as you do now ?-Yes,<br />
because <strong>of</strong> my loss.<br />
50861. May I ask why you do not turn any portion <strong>of</strong> your farm to growing oats, which are so highly<br />
protected by the State ?-Yes, for one thing there is a very great scarcity <strong>of</strong> labour, at least we feel it so.<br />
As for the people living here in Lancefield, <strong>of</strong> course the labourers in the colony at the harvest :flock to<br />
them, but we people living at the outside must do the best we can for labour.<br />
50862. If you had cheap labour would you turn part <strong>of</strong> your land to oat-growing and other cereals ?<br />
Yes, certainly.<br />
50863. Do you mean cheap labour or more <strong>of</strong> it at the same price ?-I mean more <strong>of</strong> it at the same<br />
price so long as it is good labour.<br />
50864. So long as you are producing grain, would it not be to your interest to have the duty upon<br />
grain that exists now ?-I think not.<br />
50865. You would still hold your present opinion ?-Yes.<br />
50866. Bu ~fr. Longmo1e.-Would you find any want <strong>of</strong> labour if you <strong>of</strong>fered another half crown<br />
or five shillings a week, do you think ?-My calling would not afford that ; I could not compete in the<br />
market, and even then I could not get them I know.<br />
50867. Bu 11/r. Munro.-How would the removal <strong>of</strong> this 2d. a lb. duty on butter improve your<br />
position ?-I have already answered that.<br />
50868. Really I did not catch, although I have tried to follow it. I have been thinking <strong>of</strong> it since<br />
you have been speaking. Now, how does this 2d. a lb. affect you; you are not charged with it ?-I will try<br />
to make it clear. Suppose butter is 4d. a lb. here, suppose it is 8d. a lb. in Sydney, then <strong>of</strong> course there is<br />
a market in Sydney for our butter. We want to send it over and obtain that 8d. a lb., but in consequence<br />
<strong>of</strong> there being 2d. a lb. duty it is only 6d. to us, consequently we should be losing the 2d.<br />
50869. But you sell the butter here ?-But there would be a larger demand for it through the<br />
merchants, who would get something out <strong>of</strong> it and would certainly buy it. It is as plain as possible, I do<br />
not know that I could make it plainer.<br />
50870. Then you are in favour <strong>of</strong> immigration ?-I am in favour <strong>of</strong> immigration certainly-family<br />
immigration-it is a thing that will be needed for a very long time.<br />
50i371. Assisted immigration ?--.Just such as we had twelve, fourteen, and sixteen years ago.<br />
50872. You are aware that Queensland has a duty upon butter, too ?-Yes.<br />
50873. And New South Wales ?-I am not sure.<br />
50874. Bu Mr. Woods.-! think I understood you to say that your business is principally dairyfarming<br />
?-Yes.<br />
50875. So that the duties upon cereals are a matter <strong>of</strong> perfect indifference to you ?-No, certainly not.<br />
50876. In what wa.y?-Simply because I m.ay at any season, whenever I see it would pay better<br />
than dairying, begin to cultivate more largely.<br />
50877. And in that case you would like to see the duty removed ?-And in that case I would like<br />
to see the duty removed for this one thing, that it would balance the markets. Now, if we overstoclc--<br />
50878: Never mind the argument-you say you would like to see it removed.?-Yes.<br />
50879. You would like to see New Zealand oats come into competition with your oats 7-Yes.<br />
50880. You can compete with them in the open market in Melbourne ?-Yes, I think so.
1507<br />
50881. At the present price <strong>of</strong> labour ?-Yes, I think so.<br />
50882. But you do not give your views any practical effect by growing oats ?-Yes.<br />
50883. I thought you said you grew none ?-Yes, I grew 40 acres last year.<br />
50884. You want labour ?-Yes.<br />
50885. You would not object to a little coolie labour, for instance ?-Yes; I would not object even<br />
to employ Chinamen.<br />
50886. Then I understand you that that is your real meaning about immigration, that labour is too<br />
high, and the hours are too short ?-No, I mean that the labour is too scarce, and that we cannot get the<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> labour that we had twenty years ago. I have not found any fault whatever with the remuneration,<br />
I like to see the working man well paid, and I do not want to reduce the working man's wages.<br />
50887. At the same time, I understand that you employ less labour upon 2,000 acres than<br />
Mr. Galbraith employs upon 300 ?-Yes, but if everyone was to work his land in the same way that<br />
Mr. Galbraith works it, where would the country be, there must be a -variety.<br />
50888. Then Mr. Galbraith ought to be prosecuted as an over-producer ?-No, no more than myself.<br />
50889. By Mr. Lobb.-Would you be in favour <strong>of</strong> taking the duties <strong>of</strong>f the products <strong>of</strong> the farmer,<br />
and leaving them on all other manufactures ?-Certainly not, let us have fair play.<br />
50890. By the Chairman.-Have you anything further to add ?-No, nothing that I know <strong>of</strong>.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Fraucis Foy, Esq., J.P., sworn and examined.<br />
50891. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-I am a grazier and storekeeper.<br />
50892. How many acres does your holding contain ?-About 1,100 acres freehold.<br />
50898. How many do you cultivate ?-About 80.<br />
50894. Principally you are a grazier?-Dairying, cheesemaking principally.<br />
50895. Will you state to the Commission what evidence you desire to give ?-I think the present<br />
duty upon cheese and butter should be r·etained. I think it has done a great deal <strong>of</strong> good in forwarding the<br />
interests, particularly <strong>of</strong> cheesemaking. We have had some very bad years to contend with lately, though<br />
this year and the year before were better. It was not so good in the year before.<br />
50896. Do you export butter like the previous witness ?-No, we principally make cheese. We<br />
make some butter in winter.<br />
50897. Do you export cheese ?-It is sold to firms in Melbourne, I do not know whether it is<br />
exported.<br />
50898. Do you wish to add anything ?-No, I think the duty is an advantage as it gives us batter<br />
classes and prevents the New Zealand cheese, which is the principal country we have to contend<br />
against, flooding the market with their stufi. I do not think there is any duty upon butter and cheese in<br />
Sydney.<br />
50899. Yes, there is 2d. a lb. upon cheese?- Yes, but nothing upon butter; but I believe it has been<br />
abolished upon cheese lately.<br />
50900. Butter is free in New South Wales ?-Yes, and I think lately the duty upon cheese has<br />
been done away with-within the last month or six weeks.<br />
50901. By ltfr. 111cintyre.-Do you think it necessary to retain a duty such as this, the butter and<br />
cheese imported last year gave a revenue, butter <strong>of</strong> £19 for the whole year-do you think it necessary to<br />
keep that on ; and the year before it was net very much, and the year before not very much, and you were<br />
exporting butter. Cheese yielded £75 ?-That is English cheese. I think it prevents a lot <strong>of</strong> inferior<br />
stuff being sent into the country under free-trade, when they have a lot <strong>of</strong> inferior stuff in other colonies<br />
they put it upon us ; I think it is better as it is.<br />
50902. Would it not be better to repeal it absolutely ?-No.<br />
50908. Would it not do at a penny ?-Let it be as it is. You see with an inferior article 2d. is a<br />
great deal, but they might face a penny.<br />
50904. If to collect that £75 and £19 it costs the country £5,000, would you keep it on ?-I do not<br />
want to see it altered.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
David Gibsou sworn and examined.<br />
50905. By the Chairman.-What are you ?-Farmer and dairyman.<br />
· 50906. How many acres have you ?-About 400 altogether.<br />
50907. How much <strong>of</strong> these do you cultivate ?-About 80.<br />
50908. What do you grow principally ?-Hay and oats, sometimes wheat, if I think the market will<br />
be good.<br />
50909. Have you heard the evidence <strong>of</strong> the previous witnesses ?-I have heard most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
evidence.<br />
50910. Will you state to the Commission what you wish to say in addition to what you have already<br />
heard ?-I very much disagree with the protective views <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the witnesses that have been examined<br />
here.<br />
50911. We do not want to go into the question <strong>of</strong> views ?-I disagree with the duties that have<br />
been imposed and their continuance.<br />
50912. You agree then with the evidence o£ Mr. Hurst ?-Yes, to some extent. I do, but only to<br />
some extent.<br />
50913. Will you tell us where you differ from him ?-I differ from him as to the cost <strong>of</strong> producing<br />
agricultural machinery. The question was asked, by one <strong>of</strong> the Commission, whether agricultural machinery<br />
was cheaper or more costly at the present time than some years a&o, and the answer was yes. I entirely<br />
differ from that answer. I ha.ve been a farmer for about seventeen years, and I can prove now that<br />
machinery I am buying at the present day is actually more costly than the machinery I bought when<br />
I commenced farming. At that time there was no duty imposed at all, an
1508<br />
Dav!d Gibson, first reaping machine I paid less for than I paid when I bought one last year. I bought a hay rake for<br />
ron.tinued,<br />
~2th May 1883 .. £14 fourteen years ago, and I want a new one now, and I cannot get one under £19. The only instru~<br />
ment that I know <strong>of</strong> that has been cheapened is the plough. .<br />
50914. All that evidence is substantially useless unless you can make it perfectly plain to the Corn~<br />
mission that the implements you are now purchasing v.re not superior to the implements you bought<br />
previously ?-I do not see that there is so very much difference.<br />
50915. Is that the only point upon which you differ from Mr. Hurst ?-That is the principal point<br />
upon which I differ from Mr. IIurst. ·<br />
50916. In other respects you accept his evidence as expressing your views ?-We have quite plenty<br />
<strong>of</strong> labour here already.<br />
50917. You have nothing further to say?-I do not see that it is at all necessary to the well-being<br />
<strong>of</strong> the colony that the duties upon oats, cheese, and butter should be retained. I do not see that it is<br />
absolutely necessary for the prosperity <strong>of</strong> the colony.<br />
50918. You are not getting a better price for your oats now than you were before the duties ?-How~<br />
long have the duties been imposed? I sold English barley fourteen years ago at 4s., and there was no<br />
duty on then. .<br />
50919. By Mr. Longmore.-That was not the regular price ?-Yes, that was the regular price.<br />
50920. By tlw Cltairrnan.-You cannot compare fourteen years ago with now, because agriculture had<br />
not then reached its present pitch in the colony?-I sold oats thirteen years ago at 2s. a bushel, and that<br />
was not a great price, but it was the price for a great part <strong>of</strong> the year.<br />
50921. What is the price now ?-It is <strong>of</strong>ten 2s., but <strong>of</strong> course it has advanced now, because there<br />
has been a failure all through the Northern Territory; and I contend that if the Northern Territory is to<br />
be inhabited at all as a wheat-producing country we are entirely independent <strong>of</strong> all outside supplies. But<br />
if the well is already full, it is no use pouring more water into it.<br />
50922. Then we shall reach our wants and commence exporting ?-With the ordinary average years<br />
we have already reached it.<br />
50923. Then the duties would become <strong>of</strong> themselves inoperative ?-To some extent they would.<br />
50924. To the whole extent. If the production <strong>of</strong> barley and oats were to .reach the extent that<br />
wheat has done, should not we be independent <strong>of</strong> import altogether, and would not it give us some 'toe<br />
export--has not the duty upon wheat become inoperative ?-I presume there is a certain staff <strong>of</strong> men kept<br />
there to collect the duties.<br />
50925. We are not talking <strong>of</strong> that-we are talking <strong>of</strong> how it affects you as a farmer ?-If a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> men have to be paid, it must affect me to some extent.<br />
50926. But that has not an effect upon you as a fat·mer ; it only affects you as it affects me, that is<br />
11s a mPmber <strong>of</strong> the community ?~If an injustice is done to you, that does not prevent its being an injustice<br />
if it is done to me.<br />
50927. Is the duty upon wheat inoperative now, as far as the markets are concerned ?-Yes.<br />
50928. When the barley and oats have reached the same position, will not these duties also become<br />
inoperative ?-To a few only <strong>of</strong> those farmers near the coast who can produce wheat and oats and barley<br />
much cheaper than those in the interior on account <strong>of</strong> the carriage.<br />
50929. By Mr. Longmore.--Were you cultivating so early as 1864 ?-No, not so early as 1864 ;<br />
I began in 1866.<br />
50930. Do you know the price that was paid at that time for an ordinary reaping machine ?-Yes,<br />
I do.<br />
50931. What was it ?-Seventy pounds.<br />
50932. What would you pay for a reaping machine now ?-That is no criterion, for this simple·<br />
.reason--<br />
50933. Answer the question, yes or no ?-Yes or no will not answer that question.<br />
50934. By tl!e Ghairnwn.-Say yes or no, and then explain ?~But I cannot say yes or no.<br />
50935. By lif.r. Longmore.-What is the price now ?-Thirty-four or thirty-five pounds.<br />
50936. As against £70 ?-Allow me to tell you that I bought machines in 1866 and there was no<br />
11rotecl:ive duty on, and I paid less for my machine then than I did at the present harvest. I bought a hay<br />
rake at that time, and then I paid £5less than I can get one in :Melbourne for at the present time.<br />
50937. By Mr. lYicintyre.--How do you explain the statement you made just now that £70 paid for<br />
a reaping machine in 1866 and that you can get the same article now for £34 ?-They were not £70 in 1866.<br />
50938. The time asked was 1866 when you bought the reaping machine ?-1866 or Hl67.<br />
50939. What did you pay for it ?-Thirty pounds.<br />
50940. Then you made a mistake in answering Mr. Longmore ?-No; Mr. Longmore asked me<br />
what they were in 1873 and I said £70.<br />
At the request <strong>of</strong> the Commission the Shorthand Writer read over his notes <strong>of</strong> the questions and<br />
answers numbered from 50929 to 50936 above. ·<br />
The Witness.-I understood the question to be, what did a reaping machine cost in 1873 and 1874.<br />
50940A. By 1Wr. lrlcintyre.-But I put the question upon a proper footing now. What did a reaping<br />
machine cost in 1866 ?-Thirty pounds.<br />
50941. What does it, cost you now ?-Thirty-two pounds last harvest.<br />
50942. Is the machine you bought in 1866 as good a machine as you buy now ?-There is certainly<br />
·an improvement upon the last one I bought, but a number <strong>of</strong> new machines are turned out almost upon the<br />
·same pattern as the one I bought.<br />
50943. Then your new machine for only £2 more is not better, in real money value, than the one<br />
;bought eighteen years ago at that price P-It is rather a better machine.<br />
50944. Is it £2 better?-Yes, I presume it is.<br />
50945. Then the value <strong>of</strong> the machine at that time and now is about equal ?-Yes.<br />
.50946. Notwithstanding the amount <strong>of</strong> labour that has been employed upon that particular article<br />
'Ei:i.u:t:re:1--Yes.<br />
<strong>1509</strong>47. By 1Jfr. Longmore.-Did you buy a new reaping machine in 1867 for £30 ?-Yes.<br />
:50948. Whose reaping machine was it ?-Moody's-it was under £30.<br />
i50949. By ~}fr. 1Yfunro.-Sure1y Mr. Moody must have given it to you at half-price ?-No.
<strong>1509</strong><br />
{)0950. Where were you living then ?-In Gisborne.<br />
:50951. Were there any <strong>of</strong> Moody's machines there then ?-Yes, a number <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
!50952. How many ?-I should say almost every farmer had one-every one on a large scale.<br />
'50953. He gave you this with a view <strong>of</strong> introducing it into the clistrict ?-Not at all. I had no<br />
·special benefit or favour.<br />
50954. That was the price he was charging at the time ?-That was the price he was charging at<br />
the time.<br />
50955. If I remember right it was about £60 ?-I beg your pardon.<br />
50956. By Mr. Woods.-Did any one else get one at the same price ?-I do not know, I did not<br />
inquire about that. I know what I paid for my own.<br />
50957. By .Jfr. Munro.-You got this from Mr. Moody <strong>of</strong>Benalla ?-Yes.<br />
. 50958. I will write to him and_ask him what was the price <strong>of</strong> his reapers at that time, 1867 ?-You<br />
may ask him, if you like, whether he supplied Messrs. Gibson and Dewar at that price.<br />
50959. You stated just now that a hay rake in 1866 or 1867-- ?-1868.<br />
50960. Was £14 ?-Was £14.<br />
50961. What was the size <strong>of</strong> that rake ?-The same size as they now charge £19 for.<br />
50962. What was the size ?-About 5 feet high in the wheels.<br />
50963. And you say the price now is what ?-Nineteen pounds cash.<br />
50964. Is there any reason why it is a little clearer just now?-Yes, no doubt there is a reason.<br />
All the Melbourne makers are so very busy at the present time, that they are quite independent.<br />
50965. Is this a colonial-made machine or an imported one ?-A colonial-made machine.<br />
50966. Who asks you £19 for it ?-All the makers.<br />
5096·7. Name one or two ?-T. Robinson, West, and all the makers.<br />
50968. Are you open to buy them?--Yes, I am.<br />
50969. I will take the order for one fbr £14 ?-Will you furnish one <strong>of</strong> West's, bec~tuse if you will<br />
I will take one at the money.<br />
The Ckairmnn objected.<br />
50970. By Mr. M~onro.-West may be very busy and would rather not take the order, but h~ty<br />
rakes can be got in the market for £12 to £14 ?-Both <strong>of</strong> my neighbours right and left <strong>of</strong> me paid<br />
'actual cash £19.<br />
50971. Did you get a price from any other £r:m beside West ?-Yes, T. Robinson and Company is<br />
rthe same.<br />
50972. Did you get a price from J\icLean, Bros., and Rigg ?-No, I did not.<br />
50973. What did you give ?-I bought for £14 in 1868, and I wanted one this harvest, and £20 is<br />
-their stated price. The order, cash price, is £19, and my neighbours, right and left <strong>of</strong> me, paid £19.<br />
50974. Was it in harvest time ?-That is the usual price.<br />
50975. When was it that you made this inquiry and wanted it ?-At the Melbourne show.<br />
50976. Of course then, the man was very busy and could not take any more orders ?-No, you<br />
'Could not get them for less.<br />
50977. By ll:fr. Longm.ore.-How did you come to say in answer to my question, that you paid £70 ?<br />
-I never said so. I understood your question to be this-What was the price <strong>of</strong> a reaping machine in<br />
1863 or 1864-and the reason I gave that price was, that I was only a ploughman at the time, and the<br />
owner bought one-and gave £70 for it. He was my uncle, and so I came t{) know the price <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
50978. By Mr. Munro.-Are you in favour <strong>of</strong> immigration ?-I have no particular desire upon the<br />
point. I think it would be very useful if friends were allowed to send for friends at home by paying an<br />
amount down There is plenty <strong>of</strong> labour in the colony, but hardly <strong>of</strong> the right sort.<br />
50979. By Mr. Longmore.-People are allowed to do that now ?-But the Government should help<br />
to bring them out a little cheaper.<br />
50980. But that is at the labourer's cost ; did you ever think <strong>of</strong> that ?-There are plenty brought<br />
ut at labourer's cost beside them.<br />
The witness withdrew.<br />
Adjourned sine die.<br />
David Uibson,<br />
continued,<br />
12th l'>fay 1883.