DAIRY CONTROL BOARD

Putaruru Press, Volume V, Issue 172, 17 February 1927, Page 6

DAIRY CONTROL BOARD

LONDON REPRESENTATION Mr. Paterson’s Position. i Morrinsville Farmers Divided. Although . the attendance was not large at a meeting of the Morrinsville branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union on Saturday evening, two 'factions were represented, and it can be concluded by the result of the voting on a motion that Morrinsville farmers are divided on the matter of whether the Government should recall Mr. Stronach Paterson from his position on the London Committee of the Dairy Produce Control Board. By seven votes to three it was decided to ask .the Government to withdraw Mr. Paterson, but it was regretted by one member that such a contentious matter should have been brought before the meeting.

When a confidential circular on the matter was read from the Auckland executive, Mr. M. E. Barrowclough said that, even at the risk of causing dissension among the “ happy family,” they phould deal with the matter of Mr. Stronach Paterson, who, he said, even if opposed to the board’s policy, should oppose it only at the board table and not outside. Mr. Barrowclough moved in favour of endorsing the Auckland executive’s attitude and urge that when appointing a successor a man of commercial training and with no direct interest in the industry should be chosen. Mr. S. A. Ferguson seconded and said he was satisfied that Mr. Paterson was not acting in the interests of the producers but was probably influenced by the merchants who were losing heavily by the operations of the Control Board. Mr. J. E. Leeson thought control matters should Be kept out of the discussions at the meetings of the Morrinsville branch as there was quite sufficient to interest them without resorting to such a debatable subject. Personally he did not think tnany knew much of Mr. Stronach Paterson, although they knew him as a member of the firm of A. S. Paterson and Company. Mr. Leeson did not see how the board could appoint a man to the London committee and who should not oppose the policy of the board except at the board meetings, which he could not attend while in London.

Mr. Barrowclough considered that Mr. Paterson should have expressed his disapproval by letter.

Mr. Leeson said Mr. Paterson’s opinions were contained in cables which were made public by Mr. Timpany’s disclosures. He thought liberty should he given to a man to hold to his opinions as he might have knowledge which other people had not. If a man were not “ a man ” he would toady to the powers that be and the country might thereby lose by the opinions not being expressed. Because Mr. Paterson did not agree with Mr. Goodfellow’s policy Mr. Leeson did not see that the man should be “ hounded off.”

Mr. H. J. Clifford thought the gen-

eral opinion was that Mr, Paterson was taking £IOOO a year from the board and using it for propaganda against the board. Mr. Barrowclough said he did not infer that' Mr. Paterson was using' his £IOOO a year for that purpose but he was accepting that money for the board’s service and yet working in the interests of the merchants. Mr. Leeson : That’s exactly the same thing. | Mr. Barrowclough : He is fightI ing against our interests and yet ac- | cepting £IOOO a year from us for the | job. Mr. Barrowclough strongly obi jected to a man financially interested j being appointed to the London committee. f Mr. Leeson : Do you object to Mr. W. D. Hunt? I Mr. Barrowclough : No. Mr. Leeson : He has a financial interest in the industry. And you | object to Mr. Irons, who has adopted j the same tactics as Mr. Paterson. J Mr. Barrowclough : He is not j financially interested. In any case ' we are dealing at present with Mr. j Paterson. [ Mr. T. H. Wylie said Mr. Hunt’s j position was entirely different as he j was on the board as a commercial | man’s representative, and Mr. Pater- [ son was representing the GovernI merit. t Mr. Leeson : But Mr, Hunt is ! nominated by the Government. I Mr. Wylie : But as. the. mbuth- ; piece of the merchants. Mr. Wylie understood it was courI tesy on the part of a' member of an j institution, that, if he was not satis- * fled with the policy, he should resign, then put his case and seek re-election. The Control Board evidently knew Mr. Paterson, as it had asked‘for his recall. Mr. Leeson said that of course the board wished to silence its opponents. He said Mr. Paterson knew the trade and its effects and might give them valuable advice. If they wanted men on the board who only agreed with the majority then get rid of Mr. Paterson, but if it was considered that he should be allowed to differ and point out mistakes then keep Mr. Paterson in his present position. When the motion was read prior j to it being put to the meeting Mr. ! Leeson thought it was presumptuous , in its reference to “ when appointing ! a successor.” :;!<-■■ Mr. Ferguson agreed that an entirety-unbiassed man should be appointed. When a division was taken, the motion, urging upon Mf. Paterson’s recall and suggesting the appointment of a finaneially-disinterested man in his place, was carried by seven votes to three. All members did not vote, one saying that he was not sufficiently conversant with the' subject to express an opinion.