Minutes of Evidence p.1401-1509 - Parliament of Victoria

-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 of oats.
50239. The policy of 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 of
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 of 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 of bushels-thousands of 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 of 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 of this year.
. 50247. I am speaking of 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 of 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 profit ?-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 of 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 off?­
; In. the years of 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 profits for your company ?-No, not for next to nothing. You may take
other countries that you are speaking of, 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 unprofitable speculation, in consequence of the price of horsefeed_?-!
think last year it would have been very tmprofitable if we had not been able to import a cargo of
.gram from the East, to average the price.
50262. You complain of the loss of £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 of 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
of 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 of £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.