THE DAIRY POOL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11221, 29 May 1922, Page 5

THE DAIRY POOL

WHAT DOES IT MEAN ? BRITISH PROVISION TRADES’ HOSTILITY. SELLERS’ DUTY TO BUYERS. By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —CopyrightAustralian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received slay 28, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, May 26. Provision trad© associations all over tho country are liaising resolutions condemning New Zealand’s proposed dairy pool. The principal -ground of objection is a fear that thb pool will mean Government control, of which the provision trade had such bitter experience during recent years that it will do all possible to prevent a recurrence in any form. The newspaper “Grocer,” commenting on the matter, says: —“It- is always well for a seller to consult the buyers’ wishes and not try to force his own conditions upon the other party to th© transaction. There is much uncertainty about what the pool actually involves. It would benefit all concerned if the promoters of the scheme would frankly explain what change they propose to make.” PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT OPPOSITION NOT UNEXPECTED. At a large and representative conference of dairy factory representatives, held in Wellington on May 18th, it was decided to establish j a compulsory Dominion dairy pobl. Part of th© proposal is to form a company with a capital of a quarter of a million sterling. The Government is to be asked to introduce the legislation necessary to make compulsory the marketing of all export produce through the company. The Go\ eminent is also to be asked to give guarantees for financing shipments, and there is to be a levy to meet expenses. Th© decisions of the conference have first of all, states one of those interested to a “Times” representative yesterday, to he submitted to the factories, ar.d the Government has not yet been approached in regard to the necessary legislation. The proposal is very similar to the meat pool scheme, and the legislation desired would probably be very much on the lines of that passed to make compulsory the application of the meat pool proposals. But it yet remains to be seen whether the Government will introduce any such legislation, and, if so, what will be th© extent of th© powers conferred upon the company. “We are not at all- -surprised,” he added, “at the opposition manifested by the provision trad© at Home. It was, more or less, to be expected; and the opposition is, very much the same in character, and arises from very much the same motives, as that to th© meat pool scheme. It is a case, in short, of—‘Our craft is in danger. Great is Diana, goddess of* the Ephesians.’ ”