THE DAIRY POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 June 1923, Page 8

THE DAIRY POOL.

HANDING OVER CONTROL. PREVIOUS RECORDS DISCUSSED. Writes Mr. E. Maxwell (Opunake): Have any of those who are so light-heartedly voting for control, or who. are by default allowing its establishment, considered what it means and into whose hands they are passing their freedom? I would draw’ their attention to some of the accomplishments associated with prominent control advocates w’ho are moving heaven and earth to get the w’hole of our dairy produce into their unfettered hands. The National Dairy Association — “The old man of the sea,” who got on our backs years ago, set up with the express object of arranging shipping matters. They have cost the producers large sums in the past, and this last year their administrative expenses run to £11,918, of which £7OO were directors’ fees, £5607 London expenses, £1285 travelling expenses, £459 postage, etc., £553 advertising, £793 printing, etc. What have they done? Lamentably failed, by their own admission, ’not only to carry out their primary duty as to shipping, but in everything else. Shipping, they say, is most unsatisfactory. What is the result of their advertising, London expenses, etc.? Their information and forecasts are the worst we get. What we get elsewhere is infinitely more reliable and up-to-date and costs us nothing. Having failed, in everything and having lost in the previous year £16,000 in trading ventures, they now want to enslave us under compulsory control and get over £lOO,OOO a year by export tax in addition to powers for unlimited deductions from the proceeds of sale of our produce, as one aptly puts it, “to grease the wheels of a crude machine which is without a competent driver or steerer.” The New Zealand Meat Packing and Bacon Company.—The history of this concern is only too w’ell known. What dairy company would not be only too glad to get *£l for each £lOO of its holding in shares? The Rennet Company.—l believe it cost about £l6OO or so to manufacture £2OO worth of rennet.

The Box Company. —Its history is interesting and entertaining. It had a nice convenient way of getting fresh capital, but notwithstanding that it only seems to keep afloat by charging its unfortunate shareholding dairy companies considerably more for crates and boxes than they can procure them outside.

The Dried Milk, etc., shows trips Home to get less information than was available here. Followed by glowirfg statements as to future price of •butterfat—ss, or never again less than 3s per lb. Followed by land boom and its aftermath of failures, etc.

C.W.S. —“The great and only cure all,” out of which came the New Zealand Produce Association. I have one of their balance-sheets which is most interesting, but must be grievously hateful to the deluded factories that were entrapped into it. The following are some particulars: £24,000 over advances for the year—a nice comfortable sort of thing for the factories to have to pay; £105,000 overdraft at the bank, out of which these over advances were drawn; £2500 paid-up capital, but just see what wonders may come of so little; £2187 paid in directors’ fees and £691 in salaries; £2 9s cost of lighting for the year in foggy London. Where did the ‘directors and salaried officers oo to earn their fees, etc.? Why £2 9s would hardly give them enough light to count two fees, let alone earn them'. Rent, £63.—What spacious premises this would provide in London! A dog kennel or a pigeon nest —but the pigeons are out here. Now if these wonders can happen on £12500 paid-up capital backing, what may we expect from handling £16,000,000* worth of our produce and power to levy £lOO,OOO a year in export tax in addition to all the powers and opportunities for deductions from our milk cheques? . Is it not surprising that m face or such a record more and more are becoming shy of entrusting them with the oreat/powers asked? But perhaps the pool promoters consider us producers a i philanthropic society.

FACTORY SHAREHOLDERS. SHOULD GIVEN A VOICE. “A Shareholder” writes from Robson Road, Ngaere:—“There is a meeting being’ held in Stratford on the 15th inst. to further consider the above Bill. Mr. Connett, in advertising this meeting, expresses the hope that all factory directors will call their shareholders together to discuss the Bill, take a vote for or against, and act at the meeting on Friday as their shareholders direct. Many such meetings have been held, and the shareholders of the various companies have spoken with no uncertain voice, so that the directors of these companies can go to the meeting on Friday with confidence, knowing that they have their shareholders behind them. No so the Eltham Dairy Company. one of the largest in Taranaki, and whose chairman (Mr. Forsyth) is one of the prominent promoters of this Bill. The directors of this large company have not thought the Bill of sufficient importance to call their shareholders together to consider it. True they held a meeting last year, which was far from unanimous for the Bill, and much has happened since. This is too big a question to bo left to any chairman or directors, and should have been fully discussed. Should the directors of the Eltham Dairy Company vote on Friday either for or against the Bill they do so without the authority of the shareholders.” TO-MORROWS MEETING. Mr. T. Willcox (Upper Kahui Road) writes: In your advertising columns of tne fith inst. I noticed an advertisement, cr notification, drawing the attention of the dairying community to a meeting to be held at Stratford on the 15th inst. This notice was under the auspices of the Dairy Control Promoters’ Committee, and was signed J. Connett,

and reads inter alia: “That it ie expected by that time directors will have held their meetings and obtained authority to vote on the proposals.” Now. Mr. Connett and other members of this quondam committee are perfectly well aware of the substance and intention of the resolution passed at Stratford on May 24, when it was decided that the matter of proceeding with the Bill should be deferred for one month, to allow the shareholders of dairy companies time to consider the matter and came to a decision, the resolution to be circulated among dairy companies and a reply to be forwarded to the secretary in writing. This would make June 2-1 'as the day on which replies would be returnable, allowing one calendar month, from the 24th to the 24th, and one is naturally inclined to ask why the promoters have not adhered to the terms of the resolution referred to, vhich should certainly bind all honorable men, seeing that it waa carried by a majority of one of the largest meeting* of producers’ representatives ever held in Taranaki. That ihs resolution was a reasonable one cannot be gainsaid. The time allowed for consideration was certainly not unreasonable, and an explanation is already overdue to the Taranaki producers for the promoters’ action in this matter, which cannot fail by reason of the guillotine methods employed, to estrange many whose decision may be in the balance and to dispel any confidence these might hitherto have been inclined, to place in the promoters of the Bill. CANNOT TAKE RISKS. WHAT THE DAIRYMAN IS UP AGAINST. “Undaunted” writes from Pungarehu:— Sir, —Much has been written about the proposed Dairy Produce Control Bill, and there is no question about there being 1 very strong opposition to it. I take, it that the supporters of the scheme will aMmit that it is not possible to positively guarantee that it will prove an unqualified success, or that it will prove the panacea • of all existing evils. There is an element ■ of speculation in the matter that they : cannot eliminate. The scheme is necesI sarily in the nature of an experiment. If I this Act becomes law, every dairy farmer ' in the Dominion will be compelled to join in the experiment. Perhaps the spirit of “egotism” has so permeated the leaders that they have quite omitted to remember : their poorer brethren. Do they realise I that for hundreds of producers the last • few years have been like a nightmare ? ' Firstly high prices, high priced land, diffi- ! culties of finance, and then (for many) .ruin. Farms have been abandoned, and J many have gone out, leaving behind them : the toil and savings of a lifetime. Many ; a good man has managed to weather the storm, has secured concessions or reduc- ! tions in land prices, and is, as it were, about to start again, his liabilities wiped ’ off or shelved, and he faces the future with the optimism characteristic of his class. He has had his lesson in speculation during the land boom, and now hopes, by honest endeavor and hard work, to redeem the losses of the last few years. The restless energy of the leaders of the industry has evolved periodical schemes for the benefit of mankind in general, and the dairy farmers in particular, but they seem i to have disappeared in thin air. I feel , .it is unnecessary to appeal to those who > are hoeing a hard row to oppose the Bill. As far as I can see they have no option but to dp so. They dare not take risks.

and if this Bill becomes law it will be the gr&test injustice that has ever been imposed on the dairymen of New Zealand. RUSH TACTICS AND A GUARANTEE. Mr. W. J. Freeth writes from Pukearuhe:— I should like to ask Mr. J. Connett, who is responsible for the meeting tq be held at Stratford on the 15th, if he will kindly see that we will not be placed in the false position we were last time, when the whole of the Taranaki directors were quietly told that they could only have the Stratford Hall until three o’clock. It was a bit of a boom for them, necessitating the usual rush tactics. The first meeting called at New Plymouth had to be adjourned, as it clashed with Anzac Day. The second meeting at Stratford the hall was let after three o’clock. Friday’s meeting is called one week before it is due, according to resolution, so one wonders what is in store. If the promoters cannot plan meetings better than this, what confidence can we have that they will plan the bigger thing more thoroughly that they are so anxious to rush us into? One word more. Mr. Harding, one of the chief props of the Pool Co., guaranteed the meeting at Stratford 1/9 per lb. I should like to ask the pool promoters if they will endorse this guarantee, because, if we are insane enough to let this Bill go through, I guess a million or two would be required, and we should be glad to see the spot cashj We mustn’t. forget Mr. Massey hasn’t the confidence, because he hasn’t given us the guarantee he has given the Meat Pool.