LOCAL INDUSTRIES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 7222, 18 July 1884, Page 5

LOCAL INDUSTRIES.

One of the greatest drawbacks to tho success of our local industries undoubtedly is that referred to by Mr Haecol’et at tho meeting of the New Zealand Leather Manufacturing Company this week, namely, want of unanimity among the shareholders and tho directors of tho companies formed to promote and conduct them. This is not a mcro sentimental complaint ; it is one of a most practical and vital character. Quito lately, as most Wellington business people know, tho progress of tho Woollen Factory scheme was nearly stopped by a difference of opinion as to tho respective merits of two sets of directors, both highly respectable, but one of them representing chiefly tho city, and the other chiefly the country shareholders. The difference of opinion was so hot that several substantial men among tho shareholders —so it was said —dummyisod their shares, and transferred them for little or no consideration to men of straw. It was freely prophesied that tho Woollen Factory scheme, however promising it might look on paper, would never come to anything, and that even the rest of the shares would never be taken up. Happily that difference has been adjusted, and tho Woollen Fiictory seems likely to go on swimmingly. Something of a similar disaster to that mentioned, however, appears just now to bo overclouding tho prospects of another most promising and useful enterprise, which has already been started, namely, the New Zealand Leather Manufacturing Company. The company seems at present in a fix, although this industry has not merely promised well, but has done something substantial in tho way of performance. But though tho net results of its operations showed a moderate profit, about £7OO, it started with too little paid-up capital, and it could neither buy nor sell to tho best advantage, and tho interest paid to the company’s bankers on the accommodation which they granted—accommodation, wo aro informed, to a liberal amount—more than swamped all tho profits made, and left a loss of £IOOO. Now, in such an emergency, clearly, unity of action with regard to the scheme presented by the directorate for relief from difficulty was of tho utmost importance. Yet at the meeting on Monday evening the opinion of one shareholder was pitted against that of another, and the opinion of a minority of directors against that of the majority. Should such continuance ol dissention last, the old maxim might in tho end hold good, that “ a house divided against itself cannot stand.” We trust that the result of the poll taken Wednesday night will be to restore tho absolutely necessary unity of action. But it was not an edifying experience on Monday night to hear one shareholder after another finding fault with the plan of action devised by the directorate, and yet proposing no alternative scheme. The question before the meeting was not an abstract, but a very practical one, and those who found fault with the plan proposed were bound, as a matter of common sense and common justice, to suggest something of their own in its place- If they could not lead, they should willingly consent to follow. And the same rule would hold good with regard to the other dissentient directors. It seems to us clear that if they differed from their colleagues, they should have resigned their posts, unless they were prepared, notwithstanding their individual differences of opinion, to act with the majority. And there would have been nothing inconsistent or improper in this. The world of action is a world of compromises, and what peoplo are wise in aiming at in real life is not so much what is in tho abstract best, but what is tho best thing practicable. It is of no use for children to cry for slices of tho moon. And then, also, the very strength of co-operation lies in the united force of various minds agreeing to act together. It is utterly impossible that each man should have his own way, when there are, say, a hundred men co-operating, and a hundred different ■ways open to take. It sounds very well for a man to say, “ I am a shareholder just as much as any one else, and is my month to be shut! Have I not a right to my own opinion ? ” Well, there is no doubt that individual opinion is a source of energy in all collective life, and in tho British Empire its free expression has been one grand factor in the national greatness and strength. But individual opinion should be expressed at the right time and the right place, and even then should always be subordinated to the publiegood. We heartily concur with Mr Haecouet that tho want of unanimity of action is a lamentable source of weakness in many of our schemes, especially in those for the establishment of local industries. It was suggested at the meeting to which we have referred that patriotic capitalists like the Hon. Mr Wateehouse, who are persuaded of tho advantage of local industries, and of their being tho salvation of the colony, should give practical proof of their sincerity, not by publishing letters to tho Press, but by backing their opinions, and investing their money. But they cannot reasonably be asked to do so whilst there is not sufficient cohesion in the companies formed for tho shareholders to support and follow the advico of the directors whom they themselves have chosen, as to what is best to bo done.