FARMERS REVOLT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1356, 6 February 1912, Page 8

FARMERS REVOLT.

CHATFCUTTIXG RISE OPPOSED. lliy TelCEraph-Press Association.! Blenheim, February 5. ■V well-attended, meeting of farmers on Saturday mis-cd a resolution protesting the proposal of niuchiiic-owncrs to raise the chalicuUing rate from <s. to 111-. Od. per ton, and binding themselves to do their own cutting if tho advance is persisted in, thus taking their patronage out of the hands of buyers. It vi* stated that thu increase was due to pressure being brought by local merchants with a view to the exclusion of outride dealers, the arrangements being that onlv farmers spiling to merchants m tho district should have tho benefit ot the lower rate of cutting. A letter was received from the Ma-chine-owners'' Union, stating its intention to revert to the old rates. I Tho allegation that pressure was being brought by the merchants was inquired into recently by the "Marlborough Herald " when the matter was first ventilated. Mr. J. Reid, of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, said that, as far as he was concerned, the allegation was without justification. <Y Merchants' Produce Association had been formed recently, but it would he ridiculous to say (hat that body should not have been formed. Such associations existed all through New Zealand, and were found to be very advantageous in the conduct of trade and commerce, being beneficial to the interests of producers as well as those of merchants. The local association had adopted the rules of associations in other centres, and followed along the lines pursued elsewhere, no special function being added. All the local merchants had joined it, and it had been working smoothly. It was not right to describe the association as a "ring." It was nothing of the kind. These associations were simply designed to prevent the practice of playing one merchant oil against the other, to regularise and facilitate tho markets, to improve tho relations of merchants and producers, and, in short, secure many advantages for the common good that" only co-operation could bring within reach". As for the operations of outsida merchants, Mr. Reid gave it to be understood Hint the association supported the principle thnt the producers accommodated by local firms should put their business through the merchants of their own district—that was only a fair thing to expect—but the association acted along legitimate and recosrnifed lines. It did not use coercive or improper method-. Mr. ,T. R. Sharp, of Dalgciy and Co.. corroborated Mr. Reid's explanation of the position. The association had not adopted aggressive methods, and he, for one. would imt agree (« anything of the •kind. . . . The association conducted its affairs on exactly the same lines as woro pursued by Merchants' Produce Associations in other parts of New Zealand. It did not seek to monopolise business, but to regulate.it Tor the advantage of merchants and producers. There were many ways in which the common interest could be served by joint action. It should be ea«y to see that the producers stood to F-iin, rathor than lose, by co-oticration nn tho nnrt of th<* merchants. The market could he standardised and levelled un in this way. and tho reputation of the local produce protected. ... He strongly deprecated the suggestion thnt the association was in the nature of a "riiifr" formod in fi selfish spirit. Puch methods wmld be "a losing game," and the inerchint.i would not Iμ bo foolish as to adopt them.