FURTHER CRITICISM

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10942, 17 September 1928, Page 5

FURTHER CRITICISM

DAIRY CONTROL BOARD REPLY TO THE CHAIRMAN. At the annual meeting of the Pi> Tiiatua Co-operative Dairy Company held to-day. Mr J. G. Brechin, who previously had made the statement that Mr \V. A. lorns, present chairman of the Dairy Produce Control Board, had used his casting vote in the matter of declining the offer of the National Dairy Association of New Zealand and the South Island Dairy Association to carry on the shipping of dairy produce at the ports of Auckland and New Plymouth. and in the. South Island lot the sum of ±I2OOO per annum and had thus thrown away by his casting vote over £IOOO per annum of the hard-earned money of the dairy farmers which he was supposed to represent. returned to his attack upon Mr lorns. and replied to the assertion of the latter that h© was justified in doing this for the reason that, he had now discovered that the Associations had been previously charging too much for this work. Mr Brechin pointed out that every member of the board had voted foe the acceptance of the tenders of two Associations and had expressed satisfaction with th e work accomplished. "If,” said Air Brechin, ‘‘the Dairy Control Board has paid too much for this work in past years, it is entirely tlie fault of the board members, including Air lorns. And it was all the more necessary now for Air lorns to save the money of th© dairy producers by accepting the offer of the .associations to do the work at a costof over £IOOO per annum less than the Board itself can do it.’* Til© fact of the matter was, declared Air Brechin, that Alar lorns was receiving upwards of £IOOO per annum as chairman of the Dairy Produce Control Board, and lie wanted to keep his position safe and sure by setting up round him an organisation which would giv© colour to his statement that- the board could not be dispensed with without loss to the pr<**Sbers. All the savings which Air IoiVF states have been made by the board were made during the years Air AY. Grounds was chairman and .•had a liquid which consisted of dairy farmers’ -representatives who were harking him. They were mafle in spite cf the efforts of Ale-ssrs lorns and Paterson (who were at- Home- ostensibly in the interests of tli© board, and who were costing about £3OOO a year to maintain), to wreck the- policy cf the board. To-day. Air lorns, who is neither a director of a dairy factory or a working dairy farmer, ,i ml holds Ins seat on the board sim'h lor ihe reason that liis district declined to nominate a man in his place because he was absent from the Dominion, flatters himself that lie ifi responsible for all that is good in tiie work of tjie board and accepts r.o responsibility for all that is not light. ■ Mi- Inins.” declared Air Brechin, ■“pretends to be the servant of the dairy farmers, and at the same time dc' hires that he 'stands for the board first. The dairy farmers of t"he Wellington district expect Air lorns t > stand first for them, as they elected Lim. How much has he stood for them r The plain A.B.C. of the matter was that Air lorns stood for himself first, last, and all the time. So long a-s lie could remain chairman of the Control Board and draw his tcmfortable salarv and have all his expenses paid while he travelled u-p and down the Dominion in the endeavour to persuade daily company meeting to carry resolutions of confidence in himseli. lie would be quit© satisfied to remain chairman of a beard which was controlled by representatives of Tooley Street houses which had done all that was possible, with the assistance of Messrs lorns and Paterson. to smash the policy of the board, and had succeeded. Air lorns had yet to explain why he used his casting vote to throw away over £IOOO per annum of t lie hard-earned money of dairy.farmers, why he was careful to avoid publicity in the “Exporter” (which paper ice the mouth-piece of the chairman of “tho hoard), until his recent action was exposed, and why he is now apparently so childish as to permit his personal prejudice, against individual members of the dairy associations to colour hits actions while lie is occupying a public position. Becous-e his board made repeated errors. and threw away much money is surely no reason why Air lorns should now use his casting vote in favour of a continuance of this ruinous state of affairs, and hide his action from those who employ him to protect their interests. Mr lorns has probably now given ill© long suffering dairy farmer one of the strongest possible reasons for working for the removal of the Act from the Statute book. The following motion, proiroscd by D. O’Brien, was carried unanimously : '“That this meeting of dairy farmers emphatically protests against the action of the chairman of the Dairy Produce Control Board. Air W. A. lorns, using h'iis casting vote against the interests of the dairy farmers of the Dominion as a whole and against the National Dairy Association as representing the- dairy farmer in the matter of refusing to accept the offer of the Association to carry out the work of shipping dairy produce at Auckland and New Plymouth for £IOtX) per annum, and setting up offices at those ports and in the South Island to carry out the work at a very much higher cost.

“That in the opinion of this meeting th© removal from tlie Board of all members who are not actual representatives of dairy farmers is iu the best interests of the dairy industry, as the- Board should comprise only men selected by those engaged in the industry which it is called upon to represent.”