The Producers’ Union and the Farmers’ Union.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume IX, Issue 1114, 29 July 1901, Page 2

The Producers’ Union and the Farmers’ Union.

Lvst evening (Friday Messrs Dunning, McDonald, Moore, Raucke, Beech and tjuirke awaited on the Conference of the Farmers' Union with a view to bringing about amalgamation of the two bodies. Mr Dunning submitted the following as a basis for amalgamation : 1. That the combined Associations be named the New Z.alaud Farmer-’ and Producers Union. 2. That the Pioducers' Union’s platform be submitted tor the favourable consideration of the New Zealand Farmers' Union with a v.ti to its being substantially incorp .rated in the combined Association programme. 3. That in view of the g-eat importance of the combined Associations becoming numerically strong \nd as a token of onr amalgamation we submit the idea of the Association accepting the benefit of the Producer-.' Union’s Secretary’s services for the Wellington Province to a-sist in the enrolment of member*, etc. 4. We invite the New Z.aland Farmers’ Union tu favourably consider tbe suggestion to make the platforms of the two Assoc.stions as a common programm: of alt. | 5. That delegates oe empowered jto accept amalgamation provided { that such be vubsiauualiy in aceord- ( ance with tha objects and platf rrn of the Producers’ Union, keeping well in view the great advantages of j amity and ehuiinal.np- all party | politics from the new programme, j Mr Welsh contended tha* ,t wag identical with tha Farmers Union, ; and that all that remain, te be done was for the memo- of the I former to joiu the Farmer.- Union, j The Chairman pointed out that ' the two platforms wt-e uot exactly ; the “acne. j Mr Dunning said all Jiat the Producers' Union asked was tbs: their Secretary should a- «i in t'. work of enre'ment if amalgams’ m took place. Tbe ducers’ Union totalled JO, end no canvass had been male .or support. 1 A discussion then eusued in refer- ' ence to alleged disloyalty by Mr i Moore (Secretary of the Producers’ Un ion while be was connected with the Farmers' Union. Mr Glass sta'ci that Mr Moore suggested to him that he should a-=;-l him Mr Moore, to form the j Producers' Union, and that “it would be alright as the Farmers' . Union would saoa be delunct.” The delegates from the Pioducers’ I Union objected to the statement that . Mr Moore was nufaitiial to the Farmers' Union. Mr McDonald (’reducers’ Union) , asserted that party politics had been introduced into the Farmers’ Union ! cries of *• No !" an lin pr-of of thi*

tatement he said ;.,e platform of tne Union r.iiUL-1 a blow a: the Land lor SettleniiUt. Continuing, Mr Mc- ‘ Donald sail they ha 1 me: altogether as farmers anl ins Union desired amalgamation but no: adsorption. - Mr Leach 'Taranaki Un’on) was i- appo-ol to amalgamation. He ls moved. That the Farmers’ Union e . cannot accept amalgamation with * the Producers' Union, but that the >f members of the latter can j oia the 5 Farmers’ Union as individuals. 1 I Mt s-rs Richard* (Te Hors) and B. - Smith (Pahiatua deprecated any >ll- - feeling cropping up between the two 2 Unions. Xi ey »• gb» mat the 1 matter could be settled unicriffv bv " the members cf the Froduiera’ 1 Union joining the Farmers’ Uuion. Mr Dunning surg.-ud that it * would be adv.sable fer the amended a platform of the Tanners’ Union to ( be placed before them, and thev f could give careful consideration ( lefore auy final a ci.:u was arrived I at. In reply to a question, Mr Moore . would r. puire to LaTe the work of sole organisation in the Wellington Province, Mr Glass to control similar work in other provinc s in the colony. Messrs Glass and Moor* then placedli.tr view> be Fro the meeting iu regsru to what had taken place a: lah uua in connection with estabt - Mr Quirke said be had a>s ! «el to form tUe Producers’ Union because ha thought the larmers’ Union did uoi meet requirements. A: the same time he 1 wouid like to see the two Uuion« amalgamated.

Mr Hamilton (Taranaki) objected to the' Farmers’ Union, which Lad a membership cf -.000. being dictated Ito by the I’ndneer* t owe, which only po«;, -«i l 00 members. The motion proposed by Mr Leach was held in abeyance, and the Painat . i ele .agates were supplieJ with a evpy of ihc amended p.atform of ti.e Farmers' Union after which thev reared from the turning in order t'o ; decide what a.-tion they should lake lu s no.nmg the proposed •mUgauiaticn betw*eu I iwc Union* i 'V 4 ' ian her discussed by ihe Farmers’ , l nifn r.fi'r* roc, R was decided on the motion of Mr riMsa.it*. MoaU bv Mg r ; a ’, r “» : ‘hisConference.having hea d views of ;b, deputation tioui mo 1 ah alua Priwucers’ Union, Jo ire< to thank them for their explena:ions, and finally hav* decided Union wilj acc-pt the members of the Producers' .'"o- 1 member* of the Far in. r* i mon. fr l m l! -’h.' l T ,T . a ,0 ; r reived from ,oo uclevatc* of the’ Producer*' l utem, 111 winch thev , a -r rsiew. hud- been ma^ rrs anJiu t a 5.,.h lv withdrawn. If rl.at procramum°of .h?'A “"V'-' 1 ' 1, J | i,' ’ 1 armor. I nton ' : ’ iv tl P-. du.vrs l on. M (11 , v . ) ( jv,

j of the Farmers' Union w, ,'. not in ihc nature of a d ... .. I but of absorption. ** ! I!, °, denied .ha as-i- ---. * ,ons *>ed b.vn cast upon il cl'ri j ducers’ Union. 1 ! Eventu lily it wa* decided of Mr R. s >, ' ■ V’ Tay-or, Thai II ii'phatical.y denies h -vi .- . ~ j ® Hv previou , ven'm* M any aspereioiis on the delei.-. f more,,, .orrow that, i ; , an< ,. r ; tho soti "i o( Mr M r.< tl > t t.irv. —M , tun ; , . ’