N.Z. DAIRY ASSOCIATION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 580, 28 June 1913, Page 7

N.Z. DAIRY ASSOCIATION.

MEETING AT MAUNGATAWHIRI. A large and rspresentative meeting of milk suppliers was held at IVlaungatawhiri on Tuesday evening last, and was attended by Mr Wesley Spragg (chairman of directors), Mr R. H. McKenzie (director)! and Mr F. E. Pacey (general manager). Mr Pacey addrfssed the meeting at some length in similar terms to meetings already reported, reviewing the increase in the voloume of the business, the marketing conditions which have prevailed during the past season, the herd-testing work as carried on bv the association, and the initiation'of the caspin department, which is expected to commence operations during October next. In the course of his remarks, Mr Pacey stated that he felt it necessary to explain his position concerning statements made by the management of the company which is known as the Waikato Co-operative Dairy Company, Ltd. A report appeared in the King Country Chronicle of a meeting held at Ranganui in which the representative of that company was made to say: "The suppliers' interests were always sure of the most graceful consideration, and. as the compan" was registered under the .'Dairy Industry Act,' all profits had to be paid to the suppliers. The company was, therefore. of a purely co-operative nature." Mr Pacey said he had taken occasion to contradict the statement that the Waikato Co operative Dairy Company was registered under the "Dairy Industry Act." Since then Mr ;Goodfellow had, in a letter to the Waikato Argus, admitted that the reported statement was contrary to fact, and had attributed it to a mistake on the part of the reporter to thu King Country Chronicle.- Mr Pacey continued that it was right the actual facta of the case should be known; he, of course, accepted Mr Goodfellow's explanation. At the same tim?, he thought an explanation should also have been made concerning the same mis statements which appeared in the Waikato Times in its report of the same meeting. It was a strange coincidence that two reports lo different papers should have contained the same statement, and that such statement should have differed from what was said at the meeting in question. In commenting on the claim that the company in question was a co opeative one,"Mr Pacey said that as far a3 could be ascertained only seven and a half per cent, of its share 3 ware in the hands of persons interested as milk suppliers; under the circumstances such a claitn was an absurdity. Mr Pacey remarked that the Goodfellow company claimed to sell their butter at higher rates; to run their company at much less expense and to pay all the profits to the supplying shareholders. If this was so. it would be interesting to know why their net payments were so much less than similar payments made by the New Zealand Dairy Association. It'might be that the Waikato Company gives graceful consideration" to its suppliers, but such consideration appeared very poor in comparison with what genuine co-operative companies were doing. As a case in point, the Dairy Association had, under similar conditions during the preceding season, paid one penny farthing per ib in excess of the payments! made by the Waikato company. Mr Pacey said he made this statement solelv with the desire to prevent misunderstanding amongst the suppliers to its own company. Mr Pacey continued that at a recent Okoroire meeting Mr Goodfellow had said' that his company's local business b,ad increased to nearly £4OOO a year. By contrast, the Dairy Association's shareholders would he interested in laarning ths local business of their own company exceeded £IOO,OOO a year, and that IhH year its increase alone had already exceeded £4OOO He did not complain of proper compelition; his complaint was that the division of interests created by the presence of a proprietary company had sometime 3 made i; impossible for the co-operative corrpaniss to secure price 3 which were equal to actual values at the time.