F. B. Clapp, contiin']Jed, ·9th May 1883. 1486 barley and oats, 2s. And maize, 1 may say, is very little grown in this colohy ; the land may be suitable, but the climate does not seem to suit it. At any mte, very little is grown here, and it is not the same variety as is grown in other colonies. It is very small and a hard flinty vat·iety, not considered so good for horse feed as the large varieties, beiu,g much harder. With oats and barley, the duty is so heavy it almost amounts to prohibition; we are not able to use New Zealand or Tasmanian oats in consequence <strong>of</strong> it. It amounts to a very large bonus per acre to cultivate it. Taking the last statistics, it amounts, in the case <strong>of</strong> oats, to 21s. per acre. 50211. The duty upon oats ?-The duty <strong>of</strong> so much per cental per acre grown <strong>of</strong> oats is 2ls., which is a very large bonus, I consider. It wonl
-14:8:7 50238. By 11£1·. Longmore.~Do you know ifnnaize comes into competition with oats ?-I suppose it does somewhat, in horse feed. It does not wholly take the place <strong>of</strong> oats. 50239. The policy <strong>of</strong> the country being protective, do not you think it is necessary t~ keep.the duty upon an article that comes into competition with one that we grow ?-I u.m not advocatmg domg away 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> 2ls. an acre for oats, for, in the first instance, the land did not cost above that in many 111stances . .· 50240. You remember the price <strong>of</strong> oats here about two years ngo ?-I could not quote from memory what they were, but I know they were mucblower than they are now. 50241. They we1·e from Hid. to 18cl. a bushel ?-Not in this market. 50242. Here in Melbourne ?-I buy as low as I can and I buy largely too, and we never got them under 2s. 50243. Do you think it is possible for 9, man to live at l8c1. a bushel upon oats ?-At 18d. , 50244. Yes, because I know there were many thousands <strong>of</strong> bushels-thousands <strong>of</strong> tons-sold at Is. Gel. ?-ls. 6d. is very low, I think it is too low for the farmer. . .. 50245. How do you prove that the farmer gains 2ls. per acre, with a duty <strong>of</strong> 2s. per bushel upon his grain, when his whole produce will11ot come to more than 17s. ?-His whole produce per acre? 502,16. Yes ?-I urn speaking <strong>of</strong> this year. . 50247. I am speaking <strong>of</strong> the prices the men have had to work for-you know a farmer might be Jnclined to ask why you could not carry a passenger at lcl. ?-The present duty was not on, I think, in those very low years. 50248. The Hon. M1·. Lor·imer.-lt began on the 27th <strong>of</strong> October 1880. , ., . . 50249. By Mr. Longmore.-lt was then. Of course it would be very comfortable for the Omnibus Company if they could get feed for nothing ?-T4e Omnibus Company do not want feed for nothing, they are prepared to pay what is right and fair. . · · 50250. For next to nothing ?-No, we do not want feed for next to nothing, but we do not think we are fairly handicapped when the Omnibus Company in Sydney pays 2s. 3d. for oats, while here we pay from . 3s. to 3s. 4d. We do not see why it should be. - 50251. Are yon,differently placed from any other person in the colony ?-No, I do not ·think I am. · 50252. Then why do you object to pay the same Customs duty as other people do ?-It interferes with mv business. " 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 in giving this evidence. You might, if you liked, extend this evidence to feeding the poor with oatmeal. 50254. Why did not you object to the low price when 1hey were low ?-It was not my busi;tess. . . 50255. Would you ch·ive the people from the country ?-No, I should like to see them come m, I should like to see immigration. . . . .'50256. Y om Omnib11s Company is a great consumer <strong>of</strong> oats, but you would like to get them for nothing ?-No, not at all. 50257. When there is a scarcity you say you would get the benefit if the duty was taken <strong>of</strong>f? ; In. the years <strong>of</strong> scarcity we should, because they would come in from other colonies. 50258. Who would get the loss ? -,.Perhaps there would not be any loss. There might be a scarcity in other colonies, but it would give us a chance to get our horse feed at a reasonable price. 50259. At next to nothing ?-No, not at next to nothing. 50260. And get splendid pr<strong>of</strong>its for your company ?-No, not for next to nothing. You may take other countries that you are speaking <strong>of</strong>, and what would be ~fair price that the farmers could grow oats for. In other countries they can grow them for much less than they aJ;e here, and they on and thrive, and the countries do not go to the wall, and the people do not all leave. 50261. Do you find your company an unpr<strong>of</strong>itable speculation, in consequence <strong>of</strong> the price <strong>of</strong> horsefeed_?-! 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> .gram from the East, to average the price. 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 make a proposal that would cost you about £1,000. The question I put is this, does your company suffer a loss now in running the 'buses ?-No. _ . 50263. You do notrun at a loss ?-No, we try not to, but we should in many instances if we could not get some outside cereal that would do for horsefeecl. 50264. But you would like the farmer to run his farm at a loss to suit you ?-No. 50265. B;lj the Chairman.-How many hands do you employ ?-Between 400 and 500. 50266. Then yours is really a large industry in that way?-Very. 50267·. And a large consumer <strong>of</strong> a marketable commodity that the farmer produces ?-Yes, in every .year. 50268. By tlte Hon. jJfr. Lm·imer.-In the year when oats were so cheap, 1880, what was the cause <strong>of</strong> that cheapness in the market ?-I suppose it was the supply, which was very great. 50269. Was it a large crop, or was it the lmge imports that did it?-The large crop. 50270. Then had the duty any effect whatsoever in making prices lower?-No, I cannot see that it had at all. There were extmord.inary crops here-excessive-so large that we had the imports very small that year. 50271. Then the duty was inoperative as far as that price was concerned ?-It was. 50272. Then, in your opinion, what is it that controls the market price here, is it the local produc ·tions or the importations ?-The local production. 50273. By Mr. Longmore.-Were there any oats in from New Zealand that year?-Not many. 50274. That is not an answer to my question. Were there anv ?-I cannot say w-ithout looking at the books ; very likely some came for oatmeal, for they prefer them fo~ that. · 50275. I may mention that in that year there came in oats to the value <strong>of</strong> £16,000 from New ''Zealand ?-Yes, I presume for oatmeal. I do not think our company used a New Zealand oat that year; it was very rough upon the New Zea,land brmers to bring them here ~nd sell them at those prices, 'l'he witness withdre~~;. F. B. C!.~pp, continued, 9tlllL~y 1883.
Change language