The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1927. MR IORNS SPEAKS

Southland Times, Issue 20225, 9 July 1927, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1927. MR IORNS SPEAKS

Mr lores escaped the attentions of the majority of those who attacked the opponents of price-fixation, because Mr Paterson and the Prime Minister appeared to offer better targets, but Mr lores from the outset urged on the New Zealand Board a line of action which Mr Paterson endorsed and supported. Mr loros was chairman of the London Agency and no one has dared to suggest that he was the creature of Tooley Street or that he used his position to betray the interests of the farmers. It is therefore interesting to examine the very able and dispassionate speech he delivered to a meeting of farmers in Palmerston North on Thursday. Mr lores drew the attention of his audience to the fact that the twentynine importers handling New Zealand dairy produce were "a drop in the ocean compared with the provision trade of Great Britain,” which meant that the attempt to force the position in connection with the twenty-nine importers was not merely a contest with that twenty-nine, nor were they free to consider New Zealand produce alone. Mr lores opposed the price-fixation and warned the New Zealand Board of the effects. He declared that New Zealand produce would be avoided and speaking at Palmerston North he elaborated this point to some extent. In one place he said: In every instance where representation was made to us as to the unfair position we were placing them in, we were told that if we persisted in price-fixing, they would have to divert their attention to our competitors’ butter or cheese which would be more remunerative to them. Notwithstanding the recommendations made to the board in New Zealand, the board persisted with their suicidal policy to the detriment of dairy producers of the Domuuam feel more con-

vinced than ever, added the speaker, that had we not followed that policy, we would never have reached such a deplorable position.

From this point he went on to say that it was impossible to sell our produce in London if it were made less popular and less remunerative than the produce of our competitors. As a matter of business this is unanswerable. It must be remembered that no organisation in this country can compel these people to handle New Zealand produce while there are supplies available from other countries more attractive to them from a selling viewpoint. Mr lorns after seeing the organisation of the trade at Home and observing the conditions at close quarters opposed price-fixing and condemns pooling by compulsion in the circumstances and it should be noted that in this he agrees with the advice tendered by Mr Paterson. The fact that politics were permitted to creep in was condemned by Mr lorns, speaking from the viewpoint of the farmer, and he urged the meeting at Palmerston North to prevent anything being done to make political capital out of the matter. In explanation of this warning he dealt at some length with the positions of Mr Paterson and the Prime Minister and we quote the summary of Mr lorns’s speech to direct attention specially to this portion of it: Mr Coates, while in London, had sufficient information placed before him and as a business man could clearly see that it was inevitable that if we persisted in price-fixation there was only one end and that was complete disaster. Mr Paterson had been blamed for influencing the Prime Minister by introducing to him a deputation representing the great provision trade of Great Britain. As Mr Paterson was Government representative on the board, he was the proper person through whom Mr Coates was to be approached by the trade and I must conscientiously state there was no ground whatsoever for blaming Mr Paterson for the elimination of price-fixation. No doubt someone had to be made the scapegoat and unfortunately Mr Paterson was the most suitable victim. He thought it absolutely essential, seeing the important part played by the dairy industry in affairs of the Dominion, that the Government should have a representative on the board so it might be conversant with the board’s policy at all times.

It should be noted, too, that Mr lorns sees some useful work for the board ahead, a point that is doubted by many who now declare that the Dairy Board was instituted for the purpose of taking over full control under the compulsory clauses, that this was the design of those who formulated the scheme in the first place. But for a long time we were told that this certainly was not so—the board might introduce compulsory control if it were deemed necessary, a design differing widely from that dow declared to have been originally intended. Mr lorns may be accused, as some other members are, of seeking merely to retain a lucrative position. We mention this argument merely to say that it is as absurd as it is unfair—it should never be used where the choice of the member is in the hands of the supplier. The arguments and the acta of the members can be criticised, but to talk of them as merely seeking salaries does not help the elucidation of the problems any more than frank abuse, which is the last resort of the unskilled debater defending a wrecked cause.