DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19039, 8 December 1923, Page 19

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL BOARD.

TO TBK EDITOR,

Sir, — Mr J. Johnson’s version of the voters’ roll question is on hearsay reiteration of the ex parto statements disseminated by those who, Irko Mr Johnson, assume the right to deurivo the dairy fanner of his liberty to choose, nominate, and elect his own representatives without interference or dictation from Cabinet Minister or secret cabals. How accurate Mr Johnson, is let your columns show. In your issue of this date I find that, the Teinaka Co-operative Dairy Company (9CO suppliers) at a special meeting of directors and suppliers on Saturday last, unanimously decided to support Mr Lee’s candidature. And that the Provincial Executive of the North Canterbury Fanners’ Union decided to recommend tho dairymen of Canterbury to vote for Messrs J- Thacker, J. R. Hamilton, and Wm. Lee. Yet in his letter Mr Johnston tells your readers that “there is a Canterbury ticket being run in Canterbury of Toplin-Nowell-Thacker.” Contrast that statement with tho action of North and South Canterbury as quoted above, and it. carries its own refutation. But the voting has now started, and the decision rests with the voters for good or ill. In almost every speech or letter that has appeared from my opponents in this controversy the false suggestion has been made that I am opposed to control. It is absolutely false. I am now, as always, advocating voluntary co-operative organising and control, from nie farm to the market, but I oppose compulsory marketing and sale by others of what is mine; And when I vote, as I intend to do, for Messrs Thacker, Hamilton, and Lee I do so because they are nominated' by bona fide dairy farmers, who know them as ardent supporters of organisation and control and as men experienced in co-operative buying and selling of dairy products, and in the actual workmg of the farm.—l am, etc., ~., , , W. D. Mason. Middlemarch, December 5. TO THTB KOITOB. Sis, —The information published in your issue of November 22 that Messrs Thacker, Lee, and Hamilton had been chosen as the Otago “ticket” was correct. On November 28 you published a Press Association message purporting to be the outcome of an. interview with Mir Thaokor and conveying the impression that Mr Thacker was annoyed because his name appeared along with Messrs Lee and Hamilton as the South Island “ticket.” You will notice that Otago bad become the South Island. You will have observed, also, that although Mr Thacker lives in the South Island and the message was for the information of South Island producers, it came from Wellington. We get a lot of grand advice from Wellington. Now, how did we conic to choose Mr Thacker ? When Otago nominated Mr Lee we asked Canterbury producers to nominate a Canterbury nian whom we promised to accept.. Mr Smith, of the Central Dairy Company, and Mr Thacker were invited to meet the producers. They did so, and after the matter had been talked over Mr Thacker was chosen and agreed to become their candidate. Good and well, he went on our “ticket,” and is still quite agreeable to be on our “ticket” along with Messrs Lee and Hamilton. Youl correspondent, Mr J. Johnston, seems quite concerned that Messrs Thacker, Lee, and Hamilton should appear on one “ticket,” and I admit that it would be very strange if the only Dairy Council nominee to be elected got home on- the votes of Mr Mason and his anti-control friends. With reference to that "packed meeting,” does Mr Johnston not think He is stating on pretty thin ice when he remembers that the National Dairy Council at its meeting at which its nominations were made, was without any shadow of doubt a packed council? Throughout this whole business the dairymen who eventually foot the bill have been treated by the Dairy Council, as if they were a lot of children. I suppose it has never struck our Prime Minister to summon to Wellington only, members of the Reform Party and jeave nil; the members of the Opposition to kick their heels at home. Perhaps the Dairy Council will bring the matter to his notice. The connection of the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union with this business makes sorry reading to a member ol that union. Only the Southland Provincial Executive has taken any part in the campaign. The Otago executive, it is-true, ■passed a* hoH-hoartcd resolution simply to save the face of the Dominion Executive. North Canterbury and South Canterbury have fallen in with Otago producers, and North Otafeo has remained absolutely neutral But this is a matter which will receive our undivided attention when we are finished with the work in hand.—l am, etc., John Macadlat. Flag Swamp, December 6.