DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

Matamata Record, Volume X, Issue 805, 17 February 1927, Page 3

DAIRY CONTROL BOARD.

LONDON REPRESENTATION

Mr. Paterson’s Position.

Morrinsville Farmers Divided.

Although the, attendance was not large at a meeting of the Morrins- ! ville branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union on Saturday evening, two factions were represented, and it ci?n be concluded by the result of the voting on a motion that Morrinsville farmers are divided on the matter of whether the Government should recall Mr. Stronach Paterson from his position on the '•London Committee of the Dairy Produce Control Board. By seven votes to three it was decided to ask the Government to withdraw Mr. Paterson, but it was ! regretted by one member that such a contentious matter should have been brought before the meeting. When a confidential circular on the matter was read from the Auckland executive, Mr. M. E. Barrowclough said that, even at the risk of causing, dissension among the “happy family,” they should deal with the matter of Mr. Stronach Paterson, who, he said, even if opposed to the board s policy, should oppose it only at the board table and not outside. Mr. Barrowclough moved in favour of endorsing the Auckland executive’s attitude and urge that when appointing a successor a man of commercial training and with no direct interest in the industry should be chosen. Mr. S. A. Ferguson seconded and said he was satisfied that Mr. Paterson was not acting in the interests of the producers but was probably influenced by the merchants who ; were losing heavily by the operations of the Control Board. ! Mr. J. E. Leeson thought control matters should be kept out of the J discussions at the meetings of the Morrinsville branch as there was quite sufficient to interest them with- . out resorting to such a debatable sub- | ject. Personally he did not think many knew much of Mr. Stronach Paterson, although they knew him as a member of the firm of A. S. Paterson and Company. Mr. Leeson did j not see how the board could appoint j a man to the London committee and , who should not oppose the policy of the board except at the board meetings, which he could not attend while in London. Mr. Barrowclough considered that Mr. Paterson should have expressed j his disapproval by letter. _ Mr. Leeson said Mr. Paterson s opinions were contained in cables which were made public by Mr. Timpany’s disclosures. lie thought liberty should be given to a man to hold to his opinions as he might have knowledge which other people had not. If a man were not “ a man ” he would toady to the powers that be and the country might thereby lose by the opinions not being expressed. Because Mr. Paterson did not agree with Mr. Goodfellow’s policy Mr. Leeson did not see that the man should be “ hounded off.”

Mr. H. J. Clifford thought the general opinion was that, Mr. Paterson taking £IOOO a year from the board and using it for propaganda against the board. Mr. Barrowclough said he did not infer that Mr. Paterson was using his £IOOO a year for that purpose but he was accepting that money for the board’s service and yet working in the interests of the merchants. Mr. Leeson : That’s exactly the same thing. Mr. Barrowclough : He is fighting’ against our interests and yet accepting £IOOO a year from us for the job. Mr. Barrowclough strongly ob-

jected to a man financially interested being appointed to the London committee.

Mr. Leeson : Do you object to Mr. W. D. Hunt?

Mr. Barrowclough : No. Mr. Leeson : He has a financial interest in the industry. And you object to Mr. Irons, who has adopted the same tactics as Mr. Paterson. Mr. Barrowclough: He is not financially interested. In any case we are dealing at present with Mr. Paterson.

Mr. T. H. Wylie said Mr. Hunt’s position was entirely different as he was on the board as a commercial man’s representative, and Mi*. Paterson was representing the Government.

Mr. Leeson: But Mr. Hunt is nominated by the Government. Mr. Wylie : But as the mouthpiece of the merchants. Mr. Wylie understood it was courtesy on the part of a member of an institution, that, if he was not satisfied with the policy, he should resign, then put his case and seek re-election. The Control Board evidently knew Mr.’ Paterson, as it had asked, for his recall.

Mr. Leeson said that of course the board wished to silence its opponents. He said Mr. Paterson knew the trade and its effects and might give them valuable advice. If they wanted men on the board who only agreed with the majority then get rid of Mr. Paterson, but if it was considered that he should be allowed to differ and * point out mistakes then keep Mr. Paterson in his present position. When the motion was read prior to it being put to the meeting Mr. Leeson thought it was presumptuous in its reference to “ when appointing a successor.”

Mr. Ferguson agreed that an entirely-unbiassed man should be appointed.' When a division was taken, the motion, urging upon Mr. Paterson’s recall and suggesting the appointment of a financially-disinterested man in his place, was carried by seven votes to three., / All members did not vote, one saying that he was not sufficiently conversant with the subject to express an opinion.