Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21. 1909. FARMERS & THEIR AGENTS. EXCESSIVE COMMISSIONS AND THE REMEDY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, Issue XLIII, 21 September 1909, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21. 1909. FARMERS & THEIR AGENTS. EXCESSIVE COMMISSIONS AND THE REMEDY.

FBUITGROWEBS who rpceiye circulars of Bales and quotations from Weilingten auctioneers prcfoblv tekfi litye not of aught else but th» nguTg? ifl t#e body of the printed or typewritten sheet that comes to them weekly or fortnightly. Hence in all probability they have missed an unobtrusive line stating that for the fjjtlire "a small charge of Id a case is to' be m^» for receiving and -delivering fruit"©! '?» BftJ».-" ft ad^tion, it, is not generally known tiiat y«tually all ihs. "Welliegtpn auctioneering firmp have rave? M ia Ifce splliwf cpnimißsion of 10 per cent on. vegetables, jpoultry, etc. It is not asserted tjfat & ring or combine exists; but the effect is the same, as apparently the reversal to conditions ruling some years ago, against which, farmers and fruitgrowers rebelled and termed fbg £o-operative Distributing Company, has about by common consent, fcut certainly without beat of drum or publie.».dvfirtisement. The question is- one entirely betweeq. the producer and the agent who serves him for a consideration, defined as eommisaiqn. If the producers choose Co contiiijjo dealings with their agents on ths increased tgnng o remuneration, it is their loolf-out, 51ie mere fact that they may grumble and cry out for redress does not entitle them to especial consideration, for, however important their industry may be, unless they assist themselves it is impossible for* legislation or ihg public press to aid them. The issue is entirely a matter of cold, hard business. If the producers will not do tcv themselves that which the agents do fof them, or if they have not the business etffise of combination sufficiently keen to enable them \Q compel the agents to keep dowa charges to H reasonable and equitable level, they must simply "pay and look pleasant," and comply with the inevitable economic laws of supply and demand. Beyond question, the town exploits the country in the matter of middlemen's commissions and profits, for as a rule the producer i« net a business man a 150.,. But of late years the farmer and- -fruitgrower have begun to realise that they must have their own representatives in the urban centres, and to a large extent their own distributing ftg^Bfiies; and while these agencies are tivajjai^ thore should be no fear of middlemen combinations (levying ' undue charges on the producer. • Xftyoßß charges be excessive or inequit#se, it is reasonable to suppose that the producer has his remedy in his own handu, and as he is not a child or an imbecile, it is his own fault if he ia overcharged. Fifteen ,y,sa»£ £go the commission charged by auctioneer f or agents who disposed of farm nraijucfl, |u;uit, JMiuJtry, etc., .at Wellington, svas fiyj> .Decent., and on this basis of remuneration agents did well and farmers,, and growers were content. Later on the commission was increased to 7i per cent. In 1901 tiw> larger firms of auctioneers and agents" ca»i« to an arrangement among themselves, .and rsj?.ed the rate of commission t<> 10' per ceiit. 7? 1 ' 8 ' howey«r, was resented by a, largebor of producers, and the outcome was! the formation ©f the Farmers' Co-.oper.a- j tive Distributing which «* . 1903 becjan operations on the former basis of 7i per cent. As a result,, the private auctioneers and agenti found that it would not pay them to demand 10 per cent., and the ruling rate remained at 7i per cent. The conditions estaWiehe/l in 1903 have continued for nearly six yean*. But, as already indicated ir. foregoing pwagraphs, the majerity of the -leading firms o# auctioneers find agents at Wellington' .yecy »n---ostentationsly — wltlt np more -notice ,ihan a small-print line of sotlftoafcion xit the bottom of their weekly fiirpujaf^foave raised the commission to 10 pcjr sent., aad. they also propose levying an ad. ditional charge of Id a case or package for receiving and delivering fruit of all kinds. Hitherto no charge has beenmade for teeeiyinz and delivering, aad jt haa been generftily understood that the commission covered the cost of 'handling. Now, however, the auctiansws px» «eefcinp; a fixed charge, not based on the price rcalis«d, and if the growers submit to it, they may have to deduct an additional £2000 per annum from their profits. So far as Nelson, growers are concerned, the- commission and charges payable -to agencies in Wellington for the ' disposal and distribution of their products will amount to £3000, when the

idditional 24 per cent, commission on regetebles and poultry is taken into consideration with the proposed fixed iharge of Id a case on fruit. In view of the fact that in 1903 it was possible for the then' newly-formed Farmers' Co-operative Distributing Company to prevent the impost of 10 per Sent, proposed by the private agencies,; and to keep it down to 7£ per cent.',. lt^ appears to us that the concern is in. a better position now that it, is weU.-estab-lished, to regulate the rate' of comtrilssion at Wellington. But here again everything depends upon the producers themselves! They brought the company into existence with the definite aim to keep the commission at the 74 per cent, level. If the private agencies, held in check by the company for six years, are now able to raise the commission onca more to; 10 per cent., the obvious inference seems to be that either the producers are riot standing by their own co-opera-tive .agency, or that they are willing to pay the increased' impost. So far as Nelson and district are concerned, some hundreds of growers are directly m^ terested in the- Distributing Company, and if they choose to depend °Vto l°F the -disposal- "of "their products at Wellington they will "have nothing to fear from the enhanced fates demanded by other agencies. There is no reason to make an ad'misericordfam appeal on behalf of the co-operative company, nor should' the latter require to be spoonfed and coddled merejy because it happens to be an agency whose shareholders are producers. If it cannot stand on its own business and economic paais as supplying a producers' need, it must ■lake its ohajjee with other business concerns; 1 Unfortunately thews is too much, presupposition that any concern established by farmers and fruitgrowers or tie FUffll industries generally must be boMereT up b.y special class legislation, newspaper" appeals, and a'Jund of general charity organisation rather than by "its own inherent capacity to do the work required of it ajjd.tQ be- selfrsupr porting, b # # # # On the other hand, the logical deduction U that if the farmer and fruitgrower object to pay the revived, 10 per oent commission and the Id a oase for fruit", eto., for receiving and delivery, they have the remedy in their own power. They are not compelled to employ agents wno make such charges, and they are not helplessly in the. hands of such agents, inasmuch as they have a co-operative agency of their own. The whole question is one of business, of supply and demand. Does it pay the fruitgrower "to. aeguigece to tjie additional charge of Id 'a case, - br "does, ii suit the farmer to be charged IP p«r cent. pammissipn instead of 74? Do the producers get better service and a surer and more profitable distribution of their products under these charges than under a 74 per cent charge? That Is the Issue for the farmer and fruitgrower to decide for themselves, and they may rest assured that if they come to the conolusion with some measure of unanimity that they will not deal with agencies which malt© the higher charges, tha latter nmp£ .'.'climb down" in the long run, as they hg'4 to d.Q jjj J9OJJ.