PROXY VOTING IN CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FACTORY COMPANIES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 140, 5 August 1911, Page 6

PROXY VOTING IN CO-OPERA-TIVE DAIRY FACTORY COMPANIES.

t i (to the Editor “Stratford Post.”) Sir,—Will you kindly allow me a i- little space in your variable paper to say a few words in repy to a letter ! you published recently under the ahl ove heading. Your corresooudent i brands the above practice as peinil cions. That, sir, is a very strong - word, and requires careful ban Ping. ' 1 believe it means having the quality ; of destroying or injuring—deadly, noxious. I must candidly confess- ; sir, that I have not heard of the [ death of the Midhirst Company, nor i even of the slightest injury being su stained by it, and proxy voting has obtained ever since its inception. Su:ely sixteen years is a fairly good trial. Now, sir, there are one or two phases of the question that I would 1 he tb mention. First, it is not always possible for all shareholders to be present at the annual meeting. "Von know, Mr Editor lots -T hinny ih’ngs happen to naughty dairy farmers and it is just possible that on the annual meeting day some shareholders may lie sick, or gone on a health-recruiting dour. Now, sir, in the event cf tho foregoing happening is it fair or just to penalise those unfortunate persons and prevent them from taking part in an election that may vitally affect their well-being and that of their families? Why, sir, their livelihood depends on the price the directors procure for their produce. Further, sir, it appears to me that your correspondent is casting a reflection upon the directorate. He says the evils of proxy voting are very well known and a man can ho carried in at every election by the aid of the directors. I cannot understand how the directors have any more power in the matter than any other shareholders. One has as good a chance to get proxies as the other. I believe the directors of the Midhirst Company to be a straight and upright body of men, in whom we may place every coni donee. Your correspondent also states that the chairman said that ho never used a proxy. That is not correct. What the chairman did say was that he had never asked for a proxy: a vast difference. I am not going lo u-d’end onr chairman, he is quite able to fight his own battles, but I being present at the'meeting, wish to say that, in fairness to him. Now, sir, just a word on the matter of one man one vote. Your correspondent supports his con-

lection by quoting Parliamentary elections and tbo Stratford and Ngaire Companies. Now, sir, i think the subject of Parliamentary elections is rather a large field to enter; perhaps Sir Joseph may be prevailed upon to attend our next meeting and explain the system fully. As regards Stratford and Ngaiic Companies, they are only human and perhaps wrong after ail, for in my humble opinion the situation at Midhirst is not one 01 capital against labour as your correspondent would have us suppose, but industry against laziness in many cases: not all, of course. There are many of one shareholders who have spent largo sums in improving their herds, and who by working early and late have improved their farms to such an extent'that their milk yield iias been nearly doubled in some instances, consequently they have had to take up more shares and thus have secured more votes, and rightly too; while on tiie other hand there are some who have done practically nothing in the ohaue of improving either their herds or farms. As a natural consequence their milk supply has not increased and their number of votes remain the same, and lightly so. Sir, 1 contend that it is not right that the sluggard should have equal voting power with, the hardworking go-ahead man, who through Iris industry and perseverance has so much more at stake. There arc instances on record where men have stayed indoors and done the cooking, washing, bedmaking, and attei ded to the baby whilst the wife lias gone out and earned the daily bread. I trust there are none of that cl iss in Midhirst, but 1 fear there are some indolent ones who want to reap what they have not sowed—and defeat the old proverb in eating when they have not worked: aye, and get a slice of the other fellow’s as well, if possible. But I fear it won’t work. I think the great trouble with your correspondent is that lie had a pet scheme that did not 'materialise, consequently he is wroth, very wroth. Thanking you in anticipation, I am, etc..

A SHAREHOLDER Midhirst, August bid, 1911.