WAR TO THE KNIFE!

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12161, 11 June 1925, Page 7

WAR TO THE KNIFE!

WELLINGTON FARMERS AND THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPLIERS STRONGLY CONDEMN NEW BY-LAW “WE WILL NOT OBEY IT,” THEY DECLARE Fiery phrases were used at the meeting of the Wellington suburban farmers yesterday, when they viewed a city by-law as a deliberate blow at the suburban milk producers, and resolved not to submit returns of monthly sales as the City Council demanded. Any action brought by the corporation will be de* fended as a test case.

•"The Wellington City Council are atill endeavouring to harass us by introducing further laws to curtail our freedom,” said the annual report of the association, “the latest being the Nearby Farmers’ By-law No. 47. Strong opposition was made to this at the council table by the chairman and secretary; but the council saw fit to pass the by-law, which came into operation on October 18th, 1924, but to far no action has been taken under this by-law.” The directors had been endeavouring to have a round-table conference with the milk committee to see if a satisfactory basis could be arrived at, whereby the near-bv farmers would not be subjected to the constant trouble which they bad suffered in the past concern, ing their supplies of milk, RAISED OBSTRUCTIONS “While we were genuine in our desire to reach a settlement they, on the other hand, side-stepped and raised obstructions in every possible way so that the negotiations fell flat. “We can only stress more forcibly than ever the necessity of the closest co-operation of all milk producers in and around Wellington to combat the tactics employed by the City Council as regards our business, and it should be the duty ot every member to use his utmost endeavours to make the association as strong as possible. To ' this end we would suggest the following: Get every milk producer to join the association; pay your levies willingly, thereby making your association strong financially; play a clean, straight game in your business, and do not giv6 our opponents a chance to ‘get in on us’ on the score of our being a menace to public health.” “The by-law 6eems to me an absolute sign of weakness,” said Mr E. Beavis in comment. “When the law is ineffective, to have to pass a by-law when there is no opposition can mean nothing else.” VANISHED VISION “I contend that the City Council has lost its original vision of a pure milk supply,” Mr A. E. Lambert gave it as his opinion. There was no doubt that the by-law had been passed to harass the farmers, and that the council did not appreciate the benefit of having supplies of fresh milk available, which was a pity. As a matter of fact, in the Milk Supply Act of 1919 there was a provision made for the city to finance farmers to ensure a pure milk supply for Wellington. The chairman: Only up to 30 gallons. Mr Lambert admitted that section 12 of the Act limited the selling power of a man within two miles of the city to 30 gallons a day. “We’ve shown ourselves to be a pretty fair crowd of fighters in the past,” he said. “We’ve had matters brought before Parliament which they did not intend to bring before Parliament, and we’ve won.” A member: Yes; I saw a report the other day where it was stated that the farmers did extensive lobbying during the last session, every month It was only a moment after general business commenced that the chairman returned to the point. They had, he said, received a notice from the milk manager stating that under the bylaw returns must be furnished each month showing how much milk each farmer had sold in the city during that period, and a statutory declaration in support of tho return also furnished. Fifteen returns were forwarded, and the association was reminded that the onus was on the farmer to furnish the return without reminder, and that the corporation would prosecute without notice for any breach of the by-law. A member: Does the Act say that we must- make a statutory declaration? The chairman: Yes, it does. And as they can’t enforce the Act- they have put it in the by-laws. He had gone along to the milk com-

mittee to protest, 6aid the chairman, and had found that they seemed determined to enforce the by-law. Thus protest wae useless. And this year the milk committee considered itself to have gone back with a much 6tiffer back than before. He bad received a letter marked “Private” from the chairman of the milk committee, which should not have been sent to him even as from man to man. a letter which concerned the policy of his association, and which should have been sent to bis association. “SHOULD BE USED" He believed that the letter should he used if only to show the true position between the council and the near-by farmers. Wliat attitude should the members of the association adopt towards the committee? He had a statement which ho had been prepared to

swear to before the House, and he meant to give it. Mr VV. H. Bennett had said that the talk of bankruptcy was all moonshine. Was it? There were very few business men on the council, and if they had to run businesses the first thing that most of them would do would be to bring the firms which they represented into a state of disrepute. He would have to sell milk at 7id per quart if he had to work under the limitations imposed by the council, and the return from this was £26 5s per week, while his expenses were £3O 7s Id, which did not include a very considerable amount for a family of seven, upkeep of his herd—replacement of stocks.

It might be said that with such expenses such as these they were better out of it, but they had been in the business before the council, and they meant to stay in it. IN THE HOUSE He had been inquiring as to what could be done this session, and had received definite promises from a city member whose seat practically depended upon what legislation came before Parliament this session, and if thatfailed the council would have him to contend with, for he would stump every inch of the district before any party should get the benefit of the labdUr of another after they had turned him down. The new scheme had been brought in as a war measure, and there was r.o need for it to-day. They had a monopoly by Act, and apparently they meant to make sure of it, short of the 30 gallons of which they could notrob the nearby farmers. The council had behaved dishonourably toward* them, and they would look for no help from the Labour Party, for they had repeatedly stated that if it became a matter of the scheme and £he farmers, the farmers would have to go. IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING? “I know my Marx, and I know my Engels. But I do not know what Marx and Engels would think of the attitude of the Labour Party to-day, I do not know. Were it a matter of asking the citizens of Wellington to subscribe tho funds to provide a municipal milk scheme it would be another matter. But it is not. We find them using the capitalistic system which they condemn to providie interest on the bonds issued; for let me tell them that the bonds were subscribed by those whom they condemn. So they are nothing more nor less than the partisans of those beside whom they sit; only dressed in another garb.” The supply had reached a high level partly as a result of the prices which the City Council had held out to the farmers as an inducement to those who then wero not producing milk to change their procedure and produce it. And apart from the fact that the citizens were getting milk in glass bottles, they were no better off than they were before. If they accepted the letter which had bem read by him they were unworthy to be considered as men and New Zealanders. SHOULD BE DEFENDED Mr J. Bruce: We all well know what we think. I move that no returns be sent in, and that any action which may be taken by the counciibe defended as a test case. Mr F. Kettlewell seconded. Mr E. Beavis thought that no action would be brought, for he held that the step was nothing but a piece of huge bluff. How could they expect to? He did not mean to send ijj any returns, and if they took away his license they took away his living; and who would keep his wife and children? Where was there a precedent for the demand that one body of men should submit to another body of men in opposition to them returns of what they had been selling. Concerted action was what Mr Kettlewell wanted, and he urged that the motion should be adopted. “We are of one mind on the matter,” said Mr A. E. Hosking. “The position as it stands affects us all

equally, and we know what we think. * “A PAST PRETENCE” The coumil had behaved most inconsistently. At first it had pretended to desire i'he health of the small children , but inquiry had revealed that at hospitals ana other institutions they found that the milk which was produced at the city’s door was a better milk and was preferred. In Sydney, when Labour’s municipal schemes had failed, they had at least accepted the verdict like men; but in Wellington, after the first year, they had looked around fo* a scapegoat and had picked upon the nearby farmer. The farmers should sit where they were. “1 will not send in returns. Fifteen copies, fearfully and wonderfully compiled, shall remain on the table until the .judgment day.” The motipn was carried