DAIRY CONTROL

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 101, 30 March 1925, Page 6

DAIRY CONTROL

MINISTER AND MERCHANTS. CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE PROTE: T. Tho Hon. A. D. Me ,eod, Minister of Lands, has received a ,rotest from the Associated Chauff ers of Commerce of New Zealand against remark attributed to him and made ut Geialdine. Strong exception was taken by the assoc ffion on behalf of tho commercial conum uity generally to the references made by dr McLeod to the opposition of chambers of commerce to dairy control. Mr Me.' eod was reported to have said that the oj position was made “by men who battened on the primary producer,” and that th Government was assisting tho primary producer, in order “to save him from being robbed by those who would batten on him if they could.” Such a contention, th association held, was unworthy of i respc isible man, and it was strongly resented o behalf of reputable business men who < unpriso tho membership of chambers of • ommerce. To this protest the Mi lister replied that shortly before addressing a political meeting at Geraldine lecently. a circular issued by the Canterbury Chau ber of Commerce wus bunded to him concluding with the following paragrspli:—“The world bus had an extraordinary example of the disastrous failure of tliist class of Socialistic legislation in Russia. It seems obvious that no responsible Labour Government would to-day repeat this, but the extreme Socialistic Party will welcome such Order in Council from the Reform Government as substantial contributions to the future Communistic regime.” During the coin so of his address he referred to the paragraph, and, after stating that he fully recognised the valuable and' necessurv part played by commercial men in the development of this and other countries, lie went on to say that while thero was plenty of room for honest difference of opinion as to he wisdom or otherwise of complete control as asked by the board, thero was, lie hoped, “no considerable difference of opinion in respect of the piffle contained in the portion of the circular just read." “If the paragraph meant anything at all” (wrote the Minister), “it meant that the Government was prepared to adopt any Socialistic or Communistic measures to gain or retain the support of dairymen. 1 could not believe that 5 per cent, of commercial men subscribed to such a view; and if they did, all I could say was that I felt sorry for them; i hat if such propaganda was persisted in, then the Socialistic and Bolshevik Government they. feared would soon come about.

“Later in my nc dress, when referring to causes which led 13 dairymen seeking some form of control, I said tfiat business men, not without reason, had little time for the class of seller who before closing a bargain resorted to quoting what he could get, or what he was ofle:ed from other sources. That was what the eo-o iorutive effort of dairymen had beei subjected to for years. 1 spoke with some knowledge on the mutter, for in common with others not directly interested, I had, by bank guarantees, assisted in the starting of more than ono cooperative dairy iuctory. Once started along camo the so-t ailed tiader, who offered to individual suppliers a farthing or a halfpenny per po ind of butter-lat more than the factory in.ght p. r out for the season. Those indiv duals or firms were neither fair traders nor bona tide speculators. They were not g uno to make a straight-out offer for tho ‘eason at a fixed price. They left tie mailing of a price to co-operative enterprise, a d were considered, in the minds of daii farmers looking forward to some perrnan ncy in the industry, to be freebooters md robbers who, if co-operative effert w re once killed, would show no mercy > individual producers.

“I fully appreciate the responsibility attached to my utterances, holding as I do for tlie time being the important position of a Cabinet Minis.er. May I aak whether there is no responsibility attached to the statements issued by chu nbers of commerce ? I have never re:: irred to any circular or statement iasuod by your association, and would therefore ask thut in fairness to myself and bush iss peoplo generally tiffs correspondence be published in the press, together with the paragraph read by ine at my Gerald ne meeting, with your association’s opinion in regard to the same.”

In comment on the Mi ister’s letter, the association advises that t! e Press Association reports of the meet ng stated that “tho Ministor roundly con lemned, as absolute piffle, the circular r. cently issued by Chambers of Commerce it which the Government was charged wit Bolshevism and Socialism in agreeing to .ompulsory dairy produce control. Ho did not believe that the circular represented 5 per cent, of the opinion of the business c immunity and it suit! little for the intellip nee of those responsible for it.” And uqain: "In denying that the Chamber o Commerce circular represented business opinion here, ho said that the statements n it were ‘made rather by men who batt ned on the primary producer,’ and lie auded the action of the Government ‘in . ssisting the primary producer to get the full value of his produce and to save him from being robbed by those who would latten on him if they could.’ ”

'this, it is held by the association, is a sweeping attack on the tommercial community generally; but t e letter of the Minister above quoted de Is only with one paragraph of a circular issued by one particular chamber. Th. Minister, it is added, has ignored the weighty reasons contained in the previous seven paragraphs of the circular referred >; and has also made no reference to the iroteats made by Chambers of Commerce I iroughout New Zealand.