Discuss Blanket Membership Of F.U.

Northern Advocate, 4 October 1944, Page 4

Discuss Blanket Membership Of F.U.

To discuss a proposal for co-opera-tive blanket membership of the Farmers’ Union, an extraordinary meeting of shareholders of the Maungatapere Co-op. Dairy Co., Ltd., convened by the directors on the i-equisition of 34 shareholders, was held at Poroti yesterday. More than 100 attended. The requisition required discussion of the following motion: “Recognising the urgent necessity of maximum unity and co-operation in the farm ing industry, this meeting affirms the principle of co-operative blanket membership of the Farmers’ Union, and recommends the directors to take all necessary measures for giving effect to this proposal.” The chairman (Mr L. Reynolds) read the legal opinion cf Mr Cunningham, solicitor to the National Dairy Federation, which stated that an alteration to the memorandum of association could not be made, and that a payment of a lump sum to the Farmers’ Union was outside the scope of any of the clauses in the memorandum. Mr Reynolds also quoted Mr A. C. Lamb’s opinion given at -the annual meeting of the Whangarei Coop. Dairy Co., Ltd., that the company had no power to make this payment, but application could be made to the Supreme Court to alter and extend the memorandum. Mr Reynolds pointed out that payments were already being made to the Dairy Board and Northland Dairy Association to administer dairy company business. Four Classes Of Farmer Mr E. H. K. Johnson, gave Mr A. C. A. Sexton’s legal opinion which stated the enabling clauses in the memorandum gave authority for the payments suggested. He went on to mention four classes of farmer the union found it difficult to approach-—those who could not afford to be members, financial members who would not subscribe, those who are apathetic, and the hostile group. Mr Johnson gave an outline of the proposed new federation of farmers, and then moved the proposal as stated on the requisition, seconded by Mr K. M. Stevens. Mr Reynolds .told the shareholders that though he might sound hostile to the proposal it was not so, his intention only being to point out all the obstacles. Mr P. Boyt rose to a point of order, stating that, under the memorandum this motion could not be put. The chairman pointed out that the move under discussion was only a recommendation to the directors, and overruled him. Mr R. Feaver cautioned shareholders against rushing into the matter and stated it would be no good all our suppliers being members if all other companies' shareholders did not join also. Mr Feaver mentioned the mistake the Farmers’ Union had made in trying to influence county councils not to levy hospital rates. Being wrong once it might easily he wrong again. Three Amendments Mr Boyt stated the danger of tampering with a memorandum affected not only this company but every company and- if power was given to the directors to make this payment any other payment could be made without further authority. Mr Boyt moved as an amendment that no action be taken, but this, being a direct negative to the proposal, was ruled out of order.

Mr Feaver moved the following amendment which was lost: "That this meeting recommends the directorate of the company to go into the scheme if two-thirds of the dairy companies in the country do likewise.”

Mr Johnson stated he was not prepared to jockey the company into the position of having to take the matter to the Supreme Court for decision and stated the Farmers’ Union had the matter in hand and a court decision should be available towards the end of the year. Mr Hellyn moved the following amendment, which was seconded by Mr Leca. and carried: “That this meeting be adjourned until a date to be fixed by the directors and the Supreme Court’s decision i§ known.”