DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 33, 15 June 1927, Page 6

DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

MR. PATERSONS POSITION.

Ml SRJ2PRESENTATTON ALLEGED

Per Press Association WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Messrs Morison, Smith and Mosi- . son, solicitors for Mr. Stronacli Paterson, lato Government representative on the London agency of the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control 1 Board to-day forwarded a letter to. j Mr. William Grounds,' chairman of the Board, stating that Mr. Paterson had had brought under his noI tice various New Zealand ne..s papers*, including the “Exporter”, of j Match 26th hujtv icontainiri.g what , purported to be Mr. Grounds’ version of the history of Mr. Paterson’s ■ actions in his capacity as Government representative- When the attack on Mr. Paterson was made, the letter says, Mr. Grounds wa !S aware '■that Mr. Paterson could not reply for several weeks. To reply in detail now would be of little use, and Mr. Paterson’s reply* could not have | been published in New Zealand for many weeks after Mr. Grounds’ at--1 tack appeared in the press. Mr, Paterson, therefore, did not consider it necessary to enter into a dismission on the merits or demerits of price-fixation, the issue having already been settled, unfortunately at the expense of New 7 Zealand in general and New Zealand dairy farm-, era in particular. Mr. Paterson did not regard it ns ' his concern to answer the specious propaganda of Mr. Grounds and his supporters in reference to pricc- } fixation, bub did regard it as his concern to repudiate what he—re*” gards as Mr- Grounds’ gross misre- , presentation of Ir'.s actions* as New , Zealand Governmeiib repiresentaltive on the London agency of the Control Board and, in that connection, Mr.

Paterson would welcome the opportunity, before a Royal Commission jor other appropriate tribunal apI pointed to inquire into reasons for j th'.j failure of the board’s policy of absolute control and price-fixing, of , having his own actions fully invesj tigated While in London, the letI ter further alleges, Mr- Grounds had several conversations with Mr. Pa- ( teison, under a clear pledge ot j strict confidence on both sides, and !Mr Grounds in the course of his 1 attack referred freely to those conI versations. ! In Mr. (Paterfton’ls _ view Mr. Grounds’ attack contained some complete misstatements of fact, distorted and misrepresented his confidential conversations and the general aims and effect of Mr. Paterson’s work, and insinuated responsibility on Mr. Paterson’s part for i : many happenings with which he was in no way concerned. Mr Pafcrson, would be back in New Zealand not (later than October, and if-' Mr Grounds then desired any public iu-

vestigation such as that, for example, which would be afforded by a Royal Commission, into the affairs of the Control Board ‘and the true history of the actions of its chairman and certain of its members and of Mr Paterson, and in.t,, the real causes of what Mr Paterson aifg the clistiftroiis results of tiio Board’s policy, Mr Palterson, (would he delighted to join with Mr. Grounds hi endeavouring to have such an investigation brought abouti Interviewed on the matter, Mr ‘ Grounds made the following comiment: “There has been no misreprc- < sentation and no misstatement o fact, and if a commission of inquiry could remove the harm that has been done I would gladly welcome it, but the damage can never be repaired I shall be prepared tor the fullest investigation at any • time-”