DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

Evening Star, Issue 19197, 13 March 1926, Page 9

DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —An attack of the prevalent influenza lias prevented my dealing with the proposals of the board and the many questions of importance raised by Mr Grounds in his recent address to dairy farmers in Dunedin. I will open by referring to the claim made by Mr Grounds that the Control Board—per medium of immensely expensive tours of European and American markets—had been able to closely investigate the conditions appertaining to and covering every phase of the marketing of our butter and cheese from the primary producer to the final over-the-counter sale, and as a_ result of these investigations had acquired a thorough knowledge of what was required to ensure success under control. Moreover, lie assured his audience the chief objection raised by opponents—namely, finance—had been mot and overcome. The arrangements for finance were, ho said, satisfactory, complete, and beyond question, and nothing was left unprovided for. But mark what followed this address when, at the recent Dunedin meeting, I asked Mr Grounds the two following questions;—“ You tel! us that your arrangements for financing the output of exported butter and cheese under control are entirely satisfactory and definitely assured?” Mr Ground’s replied: “ Undoubtedly.” 1 asked; “Will yon, then —your finance being assured—guarantee the suppliers under control in the coming- season the same percentage, ns monthly advances, they now receive?” Mr Grounds replied: “No; lie could not and would not give any guarantee.” Will suppliers and directors of dairy factories read, mark, and mentally digest the full bearing of that reply; and will they also consider the fact that, if the same question had been put to any experience;! director whoso dairy company’s “ finance was assured,” bo would, without hesitation, have replied in the affirmative ? The reason why Mr Grounds could not do so will lie seen further on. But could injustice or tyranny greater than this he shown: that a dairy farmer, with the whole product of thb labor of his family and self ready for sale, is compelled to hand it to others to dispose of at their own sweet will, the producer being left in blank ignorance as to when payment will bo received, or in what instalments, whether sufficient to meet his obligations or otherwise? That is where, Mr Gromuls’s reply, leaves the supplier. And the reason for that reply and inability to give a guarantee is found in tlie Control Board’s wildly speculative pooling and marketing proposals, as will lie seen by an impartial consideration, by suppliers and directors, of the following proposals, per Mr Grounds’s address No. 1: “ Produce will be allocated to the selected marketing firm. . . . Each of tho importers would put up a letter of credit. . . . Advances would ho available mi the store warrants of marketing firm.” This simply means “the marketing firm” sells on commission, price, and time of sale at board’s dictation; storage indefinite. What percentage of market value would “ marketing firms ” advance under such conditions—7os to 755? I doubt it, but welcome authoritative proof to the contrary.

Then see No, 2: “ Differentiations in payments i'or quality are to bo made to encourage factories to turn out good quality produce.” _ Yes, and nearly tiro years of investigation at home ami abroad has loft the board undecided as to what constitutes first and second quality. And an equally important question is: Where, when, ami by whom is the “quality” to bo decided? Finally, No. 3: “There will bo two pools for butter and one, perhaps, for cheese.”

_ Now, sir, let tho experienced director or supplier of dairy factories, or anyone concerned, calmly and impartially consider these three proposals, and they will see that they involve commitments for contingent liabilities, to “pools” and “differentiation” funds, etc. So will “cash” and “credits" be limited or diverted, and for this reason Mr Grounds has to refuse to guarantee suppli ;rs, under control, conditional advances equal to those wo each month receive now. Surely it is a reasonable, moderate guarantee we ask for, and, failing it, hardship and oven disaster will overtake many folk. Then tho plunging, reckless policy of the board, coupled with tho campaign of insidious and not ton scrupulous misrepresentation of those who oppose or citoicise its policy or procedure, has given cause for reflection to, _ not only opponents, but to the firm friends and supporters—and they are a majority—of a sane measure of control.

Take Hawera! Barely a, month ago the most representative gathering of dairy farmers, 100 of them,, met the full board (all available), and after four ■hours’ speech and discussion defeated a resolution favoring absolute control. Last Monday week, after Mr Grounds’s address in Dunedin, a. vote of confidence in the board is “defeated on tho voices.” And a few days later, at tho close of Mr Grounds’s address at Rangiorn, North Canterbury, the assembled dairy farmers voted against bringing absolute control into force by 80 votes to 3. There is the publicly-expressed opinion of the working dairy farmer. Will the board or Mr Grounds continue the policy of misrepresenting it?—l am, etc., W. D. Mason. Middlcmarch, March 11.