DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19311, 26 April 1926, Page 6

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

LOCAL SALES BY AUCTION. ADVANTAGE TO PRODUCERS. Mr. Charles Gee, Rotorua, writes:— Dairy produce disposal at various centres monthly on the principle of wool sales has yet to he tried. In all discussions and .correspondence on this vital subject, there docs not appear to have been any reference to this method of disposal. r lhe agents I and buyers are here. Why not ventilate | this possibility of a successful solution ? I-There may be objection on the grounds of j speculation—in any case, that cannot be | eliminated, no matter where sales take j place. Presuming this method were tried j the possibility is it would benefit the proi ducer in several ways. The English, Aus- ; tralian. Canadian. American, and Euro- | pean buyers would be keenly competing, | while the large towns in England would i have an opportunity to enter our markets j first hand. If the principal dairying cen- } tres held monthly sales the advantage | would tend to favour the producer, as he I would be paid in full every month and j know his position. I should be clad if j other producers would express their views on this system, i , * j PRIVATE TRADING OR SOCIALISM. i | WELFARE LEAGUE'S CONTENTION. ! The New Zealand Welfare League ! j writes: —8.T.8., in the Herald of April | 20. complains about a shipment of basic slag direct to New Zealand. It is difficult to reply to any one who obviously fails to realise the usual trade practice of having a local agent, through whom a foreign article has to be purchased. But apart from this we are at a loss to know how this practice can bo called Socialistic—it is the verv reveres. Here you have a firm providing basic slag, which has a sole | agent here, and also retains the right to I handle or control his personal production | us he thinks fit, and your correspondent j says tbis is Socialism! It would be i Socialism if the Government were to take j away his right to deal with his own projduction: it is the reverse of Socialism to | permit him to do so. It seems to us that j 8.T.8. should appeal to the Socialist | Party, whoso policy is to curtail and elii minate private enterprise, or to x the Dairy Control Board, who desire to prevent farmers from dealing with their own produce as thev desire. Both these bodies would at once confiscate the basis slag. The Welfare League's cudgels are used in the interests of farmer and business man alike, and are nlwnvs readv to hamj mer any one who desires to curtail lerriti- | mate private enterprise, whether in basic islag: or butter. Tf 8.T.8. desires the j Socialist, policy of confiscation to lie apI plied to basic slae. he must realise that | Mr. Basic Slag will want it applied to I butter. But speaking seriously your eorres- ' pendent, should see that the question of ! compulsory control, against which we have protested, does not. come into (he matter lie raises.