CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 November 1926, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

DAIRY CONTROL OPPOSITION . (To the Editor.) Sir, —Permit me a little straight-out comment, without fear or favour. For some considerable time I have been waiting and watching in puzzled patience at your attitude towards the Dairy Control Board, feeling occasional amazement at periodical outbursts of clamorous turbulence which have, from time to time, punctuated the trite monotony of carping and heckling by which, with sophistry and solesism, you have seemed obsessed in common with your oracle and prodigy of enlightenment, your literary luminary in Wellington and a group of local satellites. Your "leader” (note the term and all it implies) of Saturday at last conveys a revelation by its climax, when, after stating what powers are conferred upon the board by the Government, you say such was done “against the strong protests of the whole commercial interests of the Dominion.” It is, then, “commercial” rather than “producers’” interests that would appear to be of the first importance to the Daily News! A shock truly to many readers who had thought your paper as an unequivocal advocate for the rural producer. Salient facts show that our Dominion now has an organised producers’ agency, of the producers’ own choosing (of course in all such matters there will be majority and minority sides), making for the solidarity that goes for strength, economy, and efficiency. This agency, or board, is legally constituted; is recognised by the State as of national importance; is approved by the President of the British Board of Trade, and by the Imperial Economic Committee; is countenanced by, after standing the test of debate in the House of Commons; and has now in an advanced stage a basis of amicable trade transactions with Tooley Street merchants and distributors in Britain. Yet you, Mr. Editor, as champion of a coterie, would oust this organisation, and foist back upon producers the old scattered speculative system embraced by your term “the whole commercial interests.” Instead of rising to and furthering a national forward and constructive movement you would disintegrate and wreck it by a campaign savouring of disloyalty, if not a treasonable confederacy. In the name of commercial consistency, decency, and common-sense, why not let the duly constituted board function for its electors on its merits, fairly and freely? I use these terms advisedly, since you and followers are ever vamping chords upon British “fairness” and “freedom.” Again, does this attitude honour the Press? What, now, can be the opinion of our recent overseas Press visitors? Take, for instance, the insidious propagandist methods used in ’deluding the British Press by distorted and garbled misrepresentation from this end; and then re-dishing such perversions back to us through our own Press as “trade” opinions in Britain. An abuse of privilege, to put it mildly. Next, the context to the excerpt from your leader referred to, states: "He (the Premier) gave the board all the rope it asked for, and it is now engaged in hanging itself!” Now apply this rope to the Daily News, and surely the “hanging process is manifest, for does it not now stand self-stripped and naked, if not ashamed! Any average fifth or sixth standard schoolboy may see the application, now the “cue” has been given in your leader, which solves all that has been hitherto puzzling and amazing. You have apparently aided and abetted in constituting a court of condemnation, ■where witnesses have been influenced and supplied with replies to questioning. The jury have been packed and the presiding judge dominatedly preconceived opinions, with consonent rulings. And now, rather than abandon fostered ideas of Press infallibility or self-justi-fication, you prefer to traduce our fair young statesman, New Zealand’s Premier, at present absent attending the Empire Conference with devoted spirit of service, and upon whom honours are being broadly conferred by true and great Empire “leaders,” fully capable of appreciating worth. Sir, there lias been too much muek-raking on this subject for public mental and moral hygienics.— I am, etc., .BENONI WHITE. Mangorei Road, Nov. I. [Mij White knows as well as we do that the interests of the commercial class and producers are identical, and consequently what adversely affects one must likewise affect the other. The commercial community, by the very nature of its training and work, realised perhaps more quickly and accurately the risk and peril attending the revolutionary change in the system of marketing contemplated by the control board, hence its warning notes. Men like Mr. W. J. Polson, head of the Farmers’ Union, previously a strong advocate of control, came back from England, where he saw things for himself, strongly opposed to the board’s policy. He cannot be accused of dominance by commercial interests. Neither can Sir James Allen, who warned the board of the dangers they were blithely running. We have given the English trade view, as set out in a recent issue of the Grocer, whilst exeerpts have also been printed from the Imperial Food Journal, which is a completely independent journal, entirely free from any “middlemen” influence. Here are typical sentences from its interview with the trade on the memorandum of instructions issued by the dairy board: “The biggest blow possible at New Zealand butter supremacy”; “the inevitable marketing parties in Britain will seek othei - lines and remove support from what is only one of many supplies.” Mr. White should read this journal’s articles on the board’s policy and get the viewpoint of those to whom we expect to sell our produce. Then he may become a little chastened in spirit and more moderate in tone, and not be ready to impugne the motives of those, like ourselves, who differ from him. He might realise also that in giving the board powers of compulsory control the Government did a thing without parallel in the British Empire, and for this the Prime Minister must be held largely responsible. Let the board function! Yes, let it function, by all means, for there is plenty of scope for improvement in many directions in connection with the industry, but also let it cease meddling with things that it does not understand, namely, marketing and price fixation, which has brought down the active opposition and antagonism of the English wholesalers and retailers, whose cooperation and goodwill are essential if remunerative prices are to be obtained. —Ed. News.] DAIRY CONTROL BOARD. (To the Editor.) Sir, —It is a pity that those, papers, and people who applaud the recent

weakening of the Dairy Control Board are not prepared to put their principles into more general practice. Brought down to elementals, this struggle is one between the producer, who wants all he can get from the business, and the speculator, who thrives on the rise and fall in the market. The difference between the old proposals as to market reserve and the new arrangements is merely a concession to the speculator, and is a direct win for the anti-control people. The board in appointing “agents” (it’s a pity the board was not a little more diplomatic in its phraseology), considered those firms which have been buying our butter for non-speculative purposes. Had the decision of the board been unjust, the time to kick was when that decision was made. Furthermore, the board’s manager (Mr. Wright) demands information as to what is going to be done with any large quantities of butter bought. The speculative element of Tooley Street wishes a place in the sun. It does not kick against the board’s decisions; it merely endeavours to upset them. One of its moves is to get rid of Mr. Wright, preferring any old Mr. Wrong. Another is to capture the board. It was to this latter end that the voting question was raised, and the immediate result of the last election is a decision which allows Tooley Street as a whole, including the gamblers, to arrange the quotations. Taking the principle a little further, why not let all interested in newspaper advertising have a say in the price? Why not extend it to bread as well as butter, to flour, sugar, mustard, iron, wire, coal, etc, etc.? Why not give the farmers and the whole general public a say in the rate of exchange, in insurance rates, and even in rates of wages? Probably the gain would be immense, even if a few people did have to turn their hands to something more useful? —I am. etc., A. E. ROBINSON. Auckland, Oct. 30.

THE CONTROL BOARD.

(To the Editor.) ,Sir, —Your leading article in Saturday's issue contains one sentence which, to my mind, provides food for thought. You state: “It was Mr. Coates’ Government that conferred such drastic powers upon the board against the strong protests of the whole commercial interests of the Dominion and an appreciable section of the producers.” You seem to forget, Mr. Editor, that most of the noise and criticism of the control board conies from a section of the community who rightly had no say in the formation of a board to watch the producers’ interests. The producers, the people who are vitally interested, voted the board into power by a large majority, and are still behind that board in its efforts on their behalf, which are rendered none the easier by barkings from certain “commercial interests.” Trying to blame the control board for the present chaos and disorder in Great Britain is to most thinking people nothing short of ridiculous.—l am, etc. A. F. PERROTT. Onaero, Oct. 30. [When the control scheme was mooted producers were assured that the absolute powers sought would, as in the case ' of the Meat Board, never be used. Immediately the board took charge of the produce it exercised its full power, and succeeded only in incurring the open hostility of wholesalers, retailers, and the buying public at Home. That the producers realise the mistake they made in investing the board with such drastic powers was shown at the recent election of members of the board. The commercial community are necessarily interested in the welfare of the farmers for the reason that their interests are identical They have, of course, no right to dictate to 'farmers as to how they should manage their affairs, but the question of upsetting the market is one which concerns them quite as much as it does the farmers, though it be iridirectly. For that reason it is only natural that they gave expression to their views.—Ed.]

DAIRY CONTROL.

(To the Editor) Sir, —Can you, as a champion of the interests opposing the Control Board, and with it a big. majority of the producers (vide the return of Messrs. Corrigan and Timpany, two staunch supporters of the board), tell me just what is the precise objection of the London merchants to the, present policy of the New Zealand dairy farmers ? Is it, as you say, the objection to price fixing, or is this only another very red herring; if not, why did not the London merchants complain during practically the whole of last season, when nine out of ten butter factories did what the Control Board have no intention of doing, put reserves on their produce far above that which the market warranted, and did it, mark you, on the advice of these same London merchants. This price fixing bogey is like some other statements to which you give countenance. A few days ago the board’s policy was blamed for bringing the price of our butter down to that of Australia, when anyone who has followed the markets know that during the whole of last season Australian butter was within a few shillings of our prices, and occasionally above it. Again, under the new arrangements the merchants will get nearly the same commission as formerly (they have not complained that the new commission is not sufficient), the said commission being supposed to be all they formerly got from the handling of our produce, and yet all this propaganda and opposition. No, Sir, there are producers on this coast who have good reason to know that agents are, after all, only human, and they have no reason for thinking otherwise of merchants. To revert to this butter held in London, and the real cause of the recent slump, can anyone enlighten your readers of a specific case of any particular factory holding butter and the details as to who financed the holding, etc. ? Mr. Gibson wants the Chamber of Commerce to give the propaganda a boost, along with its support, but I am pleased to see the Chamber has the good taste to : mind its own business, and when others , who don’t milk cows for a living do likewise, and Mr. Gibson pays attention to ( his in dungarees and not in print, the , merchants will, as business men, get to ] business and make the best of what is to them apparently a bad job.—l am, etc., i J. S. HICKEY. ■ Opunake, 30/10/26. 1 1 [Our correspondent should know as well i as we the reasons why the importing trade ] at Home are opposed to the policy of the ] Control Board, for hardly a day passes 1 without reference being made to the sub- j ject. The board has taken no heed of i warnings -of the perils attending its course. ) It was not content to walk warily, devot- i ing its attentions to matters that called i for improvement, but preferred to imine- i diately change the whole of the relations i between the producer and the market, at i a time, too, of grave industrial disturb- 1

ance, when the market required the most delicate handling. There is no bogey about the board’s attempt to fix prices. It did so, and failed, and now it is calling it by another name, which is unlikely to deceive the Home people, or to retrieve the position brought about by the board’s precipitative and unwise action. Producers of the same mind as Mr. Hickey have disillusionment to come if they think they can succeed in overthrowing the system of marketing and distribution that has been built up over a long period of years. They will find that the importers, retailers and consumers of the Old Country will turn their attention to “free” produce, as indeed they are doing at the present time. Local producers must realise that the production of other countries supplying the Home market is rapidly increasing, under the stimulus, no doubt, of British capital, and that this Dominion is in no position to dictate special terms and conditions and dominate the market. In regard to the commission, the amount, it is true, was originally reduced by a half per cent, which was acclaimed by the board ,at the time as resulting in a saving

of some £lOO,OOO a year, but since then the Board has been compelled to go back on the original rate, and the saving will probably dissolve into thin air. This, however, is only an incident. The board has made the fundamental mistake of antagonising the Home market, instead of cultivating it. After all is said and done, it is an axiom in business that the man with the goods to sell must study and meet as far as possible the wishes of his customers. The fact that so many of the producers in this country are so utterly opposed to the policy of the board and all it stands for is a full reply to our correspondent’s contention that it is only the commercial community who are concerned about the present serious condition of things.—Ed.]