FEDERATION OF DAIRY COMPANIES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 13 October 1922, Page 4

FEDERATION OF DAIRY COMPANIES.

(Tb the Editor.) Sir,—l have to thank Mr. H. A. Lennon for his thoughtfulness. in stating "the first essential in dialectics.'; He might have added that knowledge of the subject discussed was also essential. (I will have a little more to say about this later on.) There are just one or i two things I would like to refer to be-

fore entering upon the main topic under discussion. " 'Economist' doubtless knows that articles are almost invariably unsigned," he says. On. looking I through different journals which I take, i I fail to find his assertion vertified, so it is quite patent that he refers to his own articles. Let us now compare this assertion with another of his, and we shall see that he is consistently inconsistent. "If it (or he) were known," he writes, " 'Economist' • .. . would have entitled his opinions to more respect," etc. Sir, how much value attaches to this statement,- in view of the anonimity of his original ? I might also turn his "exampleo back on himself, thus: "If it were known," etc., that Mr. Lennon was a dairy farmer and depended solely on it for a living, "his opinions would be entitled to more respect." He accuses me of irrelevancy. Let us see where he stands in that of which he complains. It was he, arid not I, that raised the question of identity. It was he that brought in [ the "personal" element. It was he that i used the 33in. and 39in. sticks; I cannot discover anyone else who ever used them. (By the way, this is a standing, joke.) I jam thankful he has absolved me from tne guilt of indulging in personalities. All the same, it was quite superfluous. Now, 'with regard to my previous remarks about co-operatives. Mr. Lehnpn says that I rather spolit these by "doubting" whether these concerns are, or can be, what is claimed for them. Sir, it t is surprising. Children can read what is 6n the but some of our \scholars read somewhere else. I did not express any doubt, for I have no misgivings on the subject. What I wrote was: "What is needed is evidence to show the present co-ops, are, or can be, what is claimed for them." In my first letter I wrote: "These companies have been operating long enough to show that some are wise and some are otherwise." We will now see that Mr. Lennon is of the same opinion by reference to his remarks about "a certain Manawatu company," ,my reference to which he says was "unfortunate" for myself. We will now see who is the unfortunate. "It demonstrates," he says, "the deplorable state of the finances 01 the company .....; and is doubtless the outcome of the policy persistently pursued in paying out to the uttermost." ; Yet when the shareholders voted the original directors

out (maybe on account of the ''deplorable state" they had gotHhe company into) the banks did not endorse that vote, but v/hen the 20th came there were, no, cheques. Mr. Lennon's remedywould have been "federation." One pill for every ill. He had better have another ehafc -with,; his banking friends about the above position, and tell them thatunder their policy "it is not always possible to- get the' best men to occupy the seats on the directorates, and ask them if their attitude would be any different under federation. I am afraid some or Mr. Lennon's arguments are something like a horse I heard about, so equally lame on every- leg that it could not limp. I fail to see any benefit from a federation of companies. It is ■certainly not sought after by any dairy farmers that I know. And you, sir, can gauge the feelings of farmers about it by the antipathy shown at their annual meetings, ndt desiring to hear about it. <•'■■■

I If Mr. Lennon studied human nature ■ a little more" he would not be so jubilanp i at the prospects of-th-af-success of what Jhe advocates. To demonstrate my point i I will take but one thing., viz., the regrouping of factories. He has failed to reply to all my queries on this point; : but, for the sake of others, >I will bait i him again. I ask, can he tell us how these factories, come to be where they are? He can! , Well, now, will he tell jus how'he is going to abolish that element in human nature that caused those factories to be -where they are? Oiir civil laws are enforced by, pain of penalty,for breaches thereof. How is he going to enforce the observance or the laws of a federation? Would not a petition from a sufficient number of dairymen cause the original factory to be reopened or a new one to be built ? Or, failing this, they-could form a new company among themselves, apart- from the federation. Mr. Lennon might be of a loving amid friendly disposition, desiring that men should live together harmoniously—although I am afraid he and I should soon be in different companionships—but that does not change the innate i^satiableness of human nature, for the eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the heart with increase. Sr>, I repeat, his sentiments might do justice to his heart, but what about his head? I heard a mart say that "it would require a regeneration of human' nature" to succeed in Mr. Lennon's pro position.- And I think he is right'Now, sir, I desire to make a few observations regarding the proposed "pool," which is really federation on a wider basis, and also to a few remarks made by Mr. Lennon thereon. He may consider himself a* qualified dialectician, and know the first principles thereof. I now wish to make use of my earlier j remark regarding the essentialness ot i having knowledge of the subject under j discussion, I maintain, my friend ' lacks in a striking manner. .I will, set: statements made by different people concerned alongside those > of his, and your readers can judge for i themselves the reliability of his state- j ments. Mr. Lbnnon. Ma. Grounds. r<Each company "Factories will consign to should sink their > whom it pleases." individuality.'' Mb. Nosworthy. The bringing in- I to effect of this ! pool would placej the producers in t • the position of j talking to Tooley ' "This would in- Street instead of volve a war with Tooley Street to Tooley . Street, themwith its huge _, ■ _ aggregations of Mr- Grounds. capital and its fine "It was strange1 organisation, and to see members j is not to be defend Tooley thought of." • Street." 'There is no Mr. Grounds. \ intention to inter-. tTIS there were fej-e with the final power to control channels of distri- there must be bution. 3' power to direct."

There are other statements I could set out, but these will suffice to show our friend's qualification to speak on the subject. »

Sir, I said before, and I desire to emphasise it, that the whole thing is diabolical and should be suppressed. Righteousness exal^ a nation, and if there is one thin;- r. 1:---—. airier ?r> which we can ascribe Brit:;:;:'., :>>■'. -

ness and prestige among the nations, it is her love of it. Let us not depart from it. Let us not lower our stand-

ard to that of a subtle and indiscreet nation. I maintain that federation and

pooling are nothing, but intrigues, and 1 have yet to find evidence to justify them. Instead of being better off as a whole we will be. worse. It has been:

said that certain firms have made large sums out of some factories, and that is used as an argument against our present methods. There is no real need for any company to sell; "it is quite optional. But, if the gambling spirit dominates some directors, and they are not prepared to take their chance on the open market, it is their funeral if they lose, and they should not defame the buyer over it. There is a tendency among us to kill private enterprise, which tendency should be checked. Certain people have gone' about stating what huge fortunes are! being made by private firms out of farmers. Yet those co-operative. trad-J ing concerns have failed dismally to vindicate those statements, either • in'; their buying or selling. It must be; that they have lost the fortunes which; the private firms would have made. We; have another example of Mr. Lennon's'j policy of "reduction on quantities" wlien buying brought to light in the report of the Patea works. Their chairman, in reply to a question, said "there was no doubt stocks had been! seriously over-purchased." In fact,' from what T gather merchants' agents j fairly revelled in doing; trade with coops., so sure were they of getting, rid of their wares in huge quantities. Then there is the sorry plight of the Bacon i Company being forced to go to the j Government for monetary support. This,! too, was an industry where private: firms were making fortunes—that is, | according to the Bacon Company's original promoters. Would you 'not think, sir, with these failures about them, people would shudder at the thought of interfering with such a I huge business as the Dominion's dairy produce, and this without a particle of! definite information to * give to those who are asked to subscribe to it? Let! us hope for the rebuff which it de-' serves.'- In conclusion, I must thank' you for your impartiality in publishing the correspondence on the j subject, I which is. of vital importance to the whole Dominion. I can truthfully say that the "personal" element does not' exist as far as I am concerned.. I never asked for. anyone to reveal his identity, ancT exceedingly regret that I Mr. Lennon has done so. However, your readers have had two opinions be fore them and can/ take them for what they are worth. If only it has caused, those concerned to think more deeply! than they otherwise would have done, the correspondence will not have proved, futile. Thanking you for space,—l am,! etc., ECONOMIST, j