UNITED CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 25 June 1931, Page 10

UNITED CONTROL

DAIRY INDUSTRY’S WANT DECISION OF CONFERENCE OVERLAPPING- ALLEGED STEP TO BETTER QUALITY ONE ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD “That in view of the grave unrest in the dairy industry, the dissatisfactidn with present mCthbds of administration, the conviction that there is unnecessary and costly overlapping in such administration, the heavy and unavoidable loss in the manufacture and the urgcht need for effective steps for improvement in quality of dairy products, this conference expresses the opinion that a co-ordination of the functions of existing controlling bodies and the appointment of an administrative head is imperative; that a representative committee be set up to prepare and submit to the conference a considered plan for the co-ordination of present departments and organisations, and the appointment of an administrative head.” After a discussion lasting over two hours the above remit was- carried by 137 votes to 98 votes by the National Dairy Conference at New Plymouth yesterday. The Mangatoki Company was granted permission to substitute that remit fo’r the following which appeared on the order paper: — (a) That this conference expresses its, dissatisfaction with the present meth< ods of administration of the dairying! industry and considers past administra-: tion has been ineffective, fading to provide a truly authoritative head, representative of the industry, charged with the responsibility of directing and governing the industry in its internal as well as its export affairs. (b) That in the opinion of this conference there is urgent need for a change in the methods of administration and conduct of the internal policy of the industry. (c) That uncertainties of policy, particularly in regard to promotion of quality, have revealed the weaknesses in the present administration and have resulted in loss of goodwill with the buyers and consumers of ‘New Zealand dairy produce. (d) That better co-ordination of the various service units within the industry is necessary to its welfare. (e) That the effective administration of the industry involves the exercise of authority and a degree of discipline which can only be applied by a board or organisation elected by the producers, and set up as the head of the industry with powers to guide and control in all matters relating to internal as well as export policy. (f) That to give effect to the foregoing proposals the Dairy Produce Board in its present form, or reconstituted, should be made the head of the industry with the extended powers, and charged with the responsibility for administration as indicated. (g) That in order to further the proposals set forth above, a committee, be appointed from the conference to bring down in detail an administrative plan for the industry, the report of the committee to 'be dealt with before the conclusion of the conference.” MORE CONCISE FORM. ' In moving the remit Mr. Free (Mangatoki) said that since the original remit had been issued they had discussed the matter with representatives of the industry and considered that the new remit embodied the main principles of the original remit. Moreover, clauses which might be considered contentious had been removed. It was also hoped that in its present concise form the remit would evoke less discussion than if each clause were taken separately, and if the remit was passed more time would ‘be available for the committee to bring down the plan as suggested. He asked also that the preliminary discussion bo confined .to the remit itself and that the circular of the company setting forth the ideas of the directors' in regard to a plan be disregarded, as that was issued only to give delegates an intimation of what was in the minds of the directors. It was thought that such a plan could be discussed by the committee if the remit were adopted. Their purpose in bringing forward the remit had been with the hope that some plan might be evolved for the better conduct of the internal policy of the dairy industry. They were not there to hold a post mortem over the mistakes of the past. For those errors all engaged in the industry must accept some measure of responsibility. They were there to build for the future. The Minister of Agriculture 'had publicly stated that his department regarded the dairy industry as a business capable of solving its own problems. To be in a position to do so they submitted that the industry must be conducted in a' business-like manner, and some controlling head was necessary. Therefore by passing the remit the conference would affirm a principle publicly advocated by the Minister and his department. POLICY RAISES DOUBTS. All would have seen the memorandum on the question of New Zealand dairy produce approved by all members of the New Zealand Dairy Produce Importers’ Association at a meeting held, in London ou April 21, 1931, and particularly the series of questions asked in this circular, continued Mr. Free. That was not released in New Zealand, nor were its contents known to any here, until June 2 last. The importers’ meeting was held about the same time as his board decided upon sending forward the remit, and a study of both would reveal that the question of past administration of the internal policy of the industry had raised in the minds of a largo body of producers, and of the importers engaged in the distribution of the produce, the same grave doubts. They had a further example of weakness in the present lack of a, competent body io conduct the internal policy in the wide publicity that was now necessary to bring before the industry such matters as the remedying of faults or. weaknesses and that wide publicity must be detrimental to the good name, of the produce. No busjness could be a success under such methods. The South Island Dairy Association, a delegation from which was present, had adopted at its conference a resolution which had for its aim the appointment of a board, elected by the producers, as head of the industry to guide and control in all matters relafing to internal as well as export policy.

The Mangatoki Company -was confident that those engaged in the great industry, which produced the 'bulk of the wealth of the land, had the ability to solve the problems confronting them, and therefore asked support for the remit. They submitted that those votin. against the remit took the attitude that no improvement in the administration or policy of the dairy industry was necessary, but the history of the past two years showed that view to be quite unsound. In seconding, Mr. F. H. Anderson (Cambridge) said that some of the industrial units must be given credit for being very efficient —about 90 per cent, of dairy company directorates —but the industry had no head and no policy and there was no co-ordination of units, with the' result that there was disorganisation everywhere. A big section of the industry was disappointed with the work of the Control Board and of the Dairy Division. Indeed, some went so far as to say they could do with scrapping. All agreed that a great deal of redrafting of the dairy regulations was necessary. REDRAFTING NECESSARY. The Director of the Dairy Division as late as June 15 had said that a great deal of redrafting was necessary to run the industry on sound lines. A section of the industry was not satisfied with the svstenl of election of the Control Board. The history of past elections showed that the producers took little interest either in the election or the administration of the board. Each provincial district also had its own local association. They therefore ffiad the control of the industry in the hands of the factory director?, the factory managers, the Dairy Division and the Dairy Control Board, an! with such a multiplicity of control they would get nowhere. The Dairy Division had come in for a Jot of criticism of late, but he did not think the position would be improved until they had the Dairy Division free from political control. He considered th© lack of co-ordination that had existed between the service end of the business and the factory managers had been a diegrace to th© industry. So bad had been ths position for years past that thev had set up an advisory board for themselves. He understood that lately the dairy research officers had been collaborating with the Dairy Produce Board on the. question of quality, but he had-yet to find anything in the Act that gave the Control Board powets to take part in th© internal conduct of the industry. LACK OF SUPREME CONTROL. Mr. Roberts (Parkvale) on -behalf of the Wairal-apa Federation, supported the remit. He considered th© time was ripe for it. The grave unrest in the industry was due to the lack of supreme control, especially in the internal matters. During the past 30 years the industry had been evolved in watertight departments, each striving to attain something in manufacture, sale, etc. They* therefore had the Dairy Division, Control Board, Research Committee and Massey College, all good and necessary units working in a circumscribed area, but they should be under unified control. That control should be an elected body, co-opting various bodies ou the -scientific side. It would only be by an elected body that they could assume the responsibility for giving the necessary regulations to enable control to be carried out. He described what ‘had happened a quarter of a century ago when a Minister of Agriculture had endeavoured to issue a good clean raw material.' If the industry had an elected body it would have to assume its own responsibility and take its own medicine when it decided on regulations. . Drastic regulations were necessary in the deplorable position in which they found themselves, -but they would be no good if the industry could turn round and kick the person who brought them in. He recognised that a better raw material was necessary_ if they were to cut out the pasteurer and have a better article. He congratulated Mangatoki on the remit, remarking that the Minister of Agriculture had warned the Taranaki people against the race for yield. It was pleasing to see now that the Taranaki people were out for improved regulations. Moreover,, a lot of opposition to the establishment of the Dairy Produce Board came from Taranaki, and it was pleasing, therefore, to note that they were now out to give that body extended powers. Mr. C. R. Smith (Otago) said the industry was faced with three crises firstly an economic one from which all suffered —the farmers most of all. The cities so far had not felt it very badly but would get it yet. The next was that of faulty cheese and cheese of a quality not required. They had to give the British public what it required, not what the graders or the producers said was the right quality. They had to solve that problem or go under. The third crisis was the clamant need for unified control, with one body having power to discipline and carry into effect the reforms which were considered so necessary. There were now in force' regulations that would prevent the farmer sending unsuitable milk to the factory or empowering manufacturers’ licenses being withdrawn if conditions were not being complied with. There was also power to prevent the produce being shipped out of the country. The department, however, had not seen lit to excicise that power, despite what seemed to him a tragedy in the interests of the country. This tolerance had accounted for the present chaotic conditions. Discontent and resentment were now rampant, everyone attacking each other, and the Dairy Division was unfortunately getting the worst of it. Now that economic disaster was facing them they must call a halt to recriminations and jealous provincial differences and exercise some commonsense in endeavouring to find a remedy 'by unified control, which it would be impossible to bring about individually. Mr. Smith outlined the progress of the industry, pointing out that originally it comprised hundreds of individual units. Then there were larger groups but unfortunately the competitive spirit instead of the co-operative spirit developed. Until that was altered better results could not be achieved. Hj stressed the need for improvement in the quality of the raw material supplied to factories, pointing out that though regulations for the supply of boiling water and of cold water to sheds had been in force since 1908, they were not enforced. Certainly the raw material was in the hands of the farmers, but then farmers had not had. training in chemistry, physics and . bacteriology—most important matters in dealing with milk. The boys and gir of to-day did have that opportunity, though he did not think thht they were rising to. the occasion. The study of such subjects in schools giving a knowledge of the nature of' milk and its bacteria would, he considered, obviate the necessity for farm instructors. UNITY ESSENTIAL. Mr. Smith held that there must tie unity of control with readjustment in power before the troubles in the industry could be remedied. At present the factory managers were under div-

ided control;' They had to listen, to their directors in the question of yield and so loaded their cheese with moisture, and while it was considered ’ by cheese manufacturers that 37 per cent, was a fair percentage of moisture he knew of factories that .put in 40 per cent. Butter factories, however, were forced to keep within the 16 per cent, limit. Moreover, because with, the extra moifiuui© the cheese did not take so long to make, and so avoided, the payment o overtime, managers were ibeing urged to go for yield. Because on the London market factories occasionally secured within 6d of first grade price for second grade cheese with higher yield, it seemed to those directors that it was just as well to manufacture second grade. The manager was not a free agent and had to do as the directors said, or as he was only under a yearly engagement his services could be dispensed with. Meanwhile the Dairy Division also told him how the cheese should be manufactured, but the manager could not serve two masters so he was placed in an invidious position. Mr. iSmith said the time had arrived when the manager should be freed entirely from the director's’ control. Voices: No good! Mr. Smith said that the directors had no knowledge of cheese manufacture as had the Dairy Division, the experts and the managers, and he thought managers should be placed in the same position as schoolmasters—assured of fixed positions and responsible to their superiors, the heads of the department. Under two masters, one pulling one way and the other another, . they would never get results. He pointed out that the officers of the dairying industry could merely advise. What was wanted was a. unifying, harmonising authority that could put into effect the resolutions carried for the improvement of the industry. They must therefore go to the Government to enlarge the powers of the Dairy Produce Board and so give an authority that was not under political control. It was stated that seven companies in the North Island had been responsible for the trouble. . Why were they not disciplined? The trouble was that tHe head of the Dairy Division could not go beyond .the wishes of the public, whose servant he was, but they wanted an authority with disciplinaiy power to ensure that the produce was of a quality that would be world-wide and would put the industry on the pedestal that all would desire to see it on (applause). , . , , -j Mr. J. G. Brechin (Pahiatua) said 'he did not propose to delay the conference more than a minute oi two. He pointed out that for 40 years the dairy industry had been assisted by the Arbitration Court, for 35 years by the Dairy Division, for nearly 50 years by th© farmer who milked the cow, for six years by the Dairy Produce Board, for 35 years by the National Dairy Association, and for some years, by the factory managers; yet to-day, in spite of it all they did not know where they were. These were patent facts, and it was high time they realised the necessity for some individual or some ‘body taking charge of the industry. There were men in the room who would say that as far as they knew the butter or cheese leaving their factories was exactly what the department wanted afid they would produce grading notes to prove it. But the position was that the industry to-day was just a disorderly rabble without a leader. It was a reflection on their intelligence. They had wasted enough time on the matter and he suggested they should get right down to the last paragraph of Mangatoki’s effort to reach a solution. Mr. Kyle (Kairanga) said it was a serious question in that they were asked to appoint an authoritative ad-’ ministrative head. They had good men on in the National Dairy Association. Was it likely some Jonah could be spewed out of a whale’s belly to make an administrative head? One speaker had said the industry had had birth pains for the last 50 years. The Gov-ernor-General had given them good advice. Because prices had gone down there was no need to be pessimistic, he considered. REFLECTION OF CONFERENCE. Mr. John Fisher (Otautau) hoped the conference would support the remit and that out of it would come some good results. It would rest ‘ with the. conference entirely what committee it set up if that part of the remit were agreed to. The committee would be a reflection of the intelligence of the conference in its attitude to the subject. There was no doubt there was trouble to be remedied and .they should be very careful how they tackled it; that they did not approach this or any other subject before the conference with frayed, nerves or unbalanced minds. They must not deal with this or any other of the big subjects in a precipitate manner. He believed the feeling of the conference was that some effort should be made that would involve the setting up of this committee. He assured the meeting that in the South Island they were entirely opposed to the setting up of a new board, but they did believe that with reasonable intelligence the powers already existing might be so co-ordinated that they could be used to help the industry out of its present troubles. The question of factory managers was highly important, continued Mr. Fisher. It : was his opinion that if they could give some form of security of tenure to these men they would ■be helping to bring peace into an industry in which there was a certain amount of strife. There was a union of managers in the South Island and its formation had been a subject for regret among some dairy farmers, but he would say as a director that ‘had the directors approached the managers with any degree of generosity that union would never have come into existence. He felt sure that if they could do something to secure the managers against the butts of the suppliers on the one hand and the department on the other they would achieve something that would ensure better results to the industry. '. Ushm as a simile the story of a generous rich American in hospital who accepted blood transfusion from a Scotsman and was never afterwards known to make a gift, Mr. Fisher said that if, 'r ' suggested, the Dairy Division had been' inoculated so effectively that the Regulations were frozen up, they would ask jthat the regulations be loosened a.'little, and even if it meant that some of them “got it in the neck” the application of the regulations would be for the wood of th© industry as a whole. ffTiey asked, he concluded, that the conference should give the remit favourable consideration and should agree to appoint the committee suggested. MANUFACTURERS’ ATTITUDE. Speaking as a representative of the manufacturers of the dairy produce, Mr. Bagri'e (Seaward'Downs,' South island), asked the . .conference to examine the position very closely. Had the managers been placed in an invidious position? He believed it could be said that at no time' previously had the industry had such efficient and capable manufacturers. Unfortunately, however, there was a tendency for the system to become clogged. He suggested they had nothing to fear and he assured the conference that the manufacturers were with, it to a man to help the industry.

He did ask them io give the proposals in the remit their serious consideration. “We are interested, you are interested and the whole country is interested from a financial aspect,” said Mr. Bagrie, “and I hope we will become united with you. for th© good of the common cause. He pointed out the conference was unique in that for the first time those engaged in management, from one end of the country to the other, had come to-day to help towards a solution and they hoped one would be achieved. Mrs. Harrison said she was very pleased to hear quality rather than quantity was being aimed” at. She could bring some things before the conference that would surprise it. She referred to the dirty state of some milking machines and to tainted cheese. It was not fair to ask managers to make good ch©cse out of poor milk. If they received good milk they could make cheese as good as any English cheddar. It was not fair that those who kept their machines clean should be made to suffer because of those who did not keep them clean. “DICTATOR FOR INDUSTRY.” Mr. G. Gibson (Rahotti) said the discussion seemed to show there was a desire to appoint a dictator for the industry. It had been said that factory managers were not free agents and it had been suggested they should be 'placed under another authority; Mr. Gibson expressed th© opinion that they would not then be free agents, either. They were entitled to ask that the regulations should be tightened up but h© considered it was discourteous to those in authority for them to assume there was no administrative head. They knew that without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture no factory could export its cheese. Therefore he was th© authority. Mr. Gibson suggested the industry had not had the loyalty it should have had and that the solution of its problems lay along the lines of further co-operation with the department than there had been in the past. Where a factory had tried to observe the spirit of the regulations and work in harmony with the department’s officers there had been very little trouble. He instanced his own factory, where the success had been gratifying. H© was not in favour of setting up another body. The tenor of the speeches that day had disclosed they were not unanimous in their views, and they never would be, and what guarantee had they that they would be unanimously behind this body when they set it up? Mr. Bond (Awahuri) asked whether the adoption of the remit would mean co-operation or co-ordination with the present departments and organisations. Would not its adoption override the necessity to consider remit 4 (regarding th© personnel of th© Dairy Produce Board being limited to representatives who were dairy farmers) and remit 5 (asking for a vote of the producers on th© question whether the board should be retained or disbanded). Some of the delegates, he explained, had come to the conference with definite instructions on the attitude to be adopted to remits, and if this remit were passed it would put them off the track somewhat. The chairman said his opinion was that if this remit were passed probably those concerned would withdraw the other two referred to. SUPPORT OF INDUSTRY NEEDED., Mr. H. C. Taylor (Ngaere) considered that the existing organisation was quite capable of carrying out any reform provided it had the industry at its back. Only two months ago one section of th© industry, representing 40,000 tons of cheese, wanted one thing and the other half wanted something else. Whoever constituted the board would not know what to do if the industry itself was divided. That was the kernel in the nut. They could not get any further unless the industry as a whole were prepared to back them up. Mr. Bond (Bainesse), as chairman of a factory that had kept its manager for ten years, resented the imputation that they 7 had at any time influenced their manager to make a bad product. He therefore would like that inference withdrawn. Whether they agreed with him or not he considered they could do their own business without the assistance of a few men who were “looking for a few bob.” Th© remit would mean the settinw up of a new board. He had been wired offering 59s fid for his cheese on the Tamaroa" Had any other factory received such an offer? They were giving fish away in England, and look at the price of New Zealand bacon? Were they standardised? Then “why get the wind up?” MANAGERS NOT “CONTROLLED.” Mr. Thomas (Belvedere) said he did not consider the quality of the milk cam© into th© remit. That could be dealt with later. In the Wairarapa they would absolutely deny any attempt to control th© manager as they had always supported the . manager. Their desire was to get quality. Managers, though, were on a competitive basis, as their salaries were based on tonnage, and possibly the managers might have gon© a little, further than they should have. A little straight talking regarding the Dairy Division -would do° no harm, but it was realised that the Director of the Dairy Division had not been giving the Dairy Board the information it should have regarding individual .actories’ troubles. He wished to know whether that had been done as a policy matter with the backing of the Minister of Agriculture, or on the director’s own initiative. The same applied to the nou-publication of reports. It was also, common knowledge that the factory. managers were receiving very little assistance from' the instructors appointed. Had the best men been appointed to those positions? As a i&atter of fact it was felt that youth had been the deciding factor in the appointment rather than ability. Usually men under 35 years were appointed and older and more experienced •men were passed over. There was also the question of salaries. The dairying industry was more important than the railways, yet had the director of the industry a salary m keeping with that of the manager of railways? He did not consider either that sufficient salary was offered to induce th© best men to take up the position of instructors. Regarding ’ the appointment of a special board, he asked who would be the administrative head. He • thought the best way out of the difficulty would be to have a Dairy Minister appointed at a suitable salary. They could then endeavour to have the best possible men appointed as instructors, who by their advice could attempt to improve the, raw material rather than attempt to’ teach managers who knew more than they did.- The Director of the Dairy Division was th© administrative head of th© division at present, and the committee must seriously consider that aspect. Dr. Reakes, Director-General of the I Agricultural Department, in explanation said that the Dairy Division had always been glad to give the Dairy Board all the ' information it could. The J e P? , referred to were those of individual factories, thousands of which were received and copies of which were, always sent on to the individual factories. The Dairy Board had been told that the department was always willing to give the Dairy Board all the information, but as those reports were regarded as the property of the individual factory, it would give them the reports with th© names deleted. The board, how-

ever, wished to have the names also, and he would therefor© like an instruction from the meeting on the question. . The department was willing to hand on all information of value. Mr. Christie said he did not think th> remit would get them anywhere. Mr. Marchant (Cardiff) said that his company was in accord with the general principles of th© remit—the coordination of the services that they paid for. To wet the best results they must have co-ordination. The fact that the various organisations had been established proved that they had found their avenues of usefulness, but with fourorganisations all striving to the one end it ° was like a house divided against itself. To have perfection there, must be unification of control, and he did not gee that it mattered much which body was selected to carry that unified control. . - _ Regarding the National Dairy Association, he pointed out that they met, annually discussed various problems and made recommendations whiph they wondered were not given effect to, but the reason was that they were not truly representative of the industry. Th© Dairy Division had received some very hard criticism of late and he thought that some of it was deserved, especially in regard to not having taken disciplinary measures in connection with certain factories. CRITICISM RESENTED. His directors had never given instruction to their manager regarding the .yield, and he strongly resented some of the criticism that had been levelled at Taranaki generally. The representatives of Cardiff were, he held, as good as anyone else. Regulations had been evolved Tor the protection of those : who right against those who did wrong, and he wanted to know why those who had done right had not been so protected. New Zealand had a social system whereby those who broke the law were put into places where they were under control. Exactly the same applied to th© dairy industry, as everyone connected with it knew perfectly well. Practices had been instituted that were detrimen r tai to the industry and impairing the quality of the produce, and he would like to know why the Dairy Division had not protected those who were doing the right thing by cancelling th© licenses for the manufacture of standardised cheese of those factories that did not do the right thing. Mr. Marchant said that the remit dealt’ with unification of control and was not intended to interfere with the present Dir-ctor of the Division. He would still be head of the division, but h© would make representations direct to th© body proposed to be set up instead of to the Minister of Agriculture or Director-General of Agriculture. At present he had political interest to contend with, and naturally his own living 'would come first. He suggested that the conference should refer the remit to a select committee to bring down a report, as on that report, which would certainly evoke considerable. discussion, would largely depend th© result of th© vote. Mr. T. Willcox (Kahui) said that he personally and the company he represented were opposed 'to the reipit. There was no constructive policy contained in it. The proposal apparently was to throw over the old board ana- establish a fresh one. The industry certainly could not support another board. Hitherto th© Dairy Division had been dealing with internal matters and the Dairy Board with the produce once it was on board. It would take time to get' rid of existingiauthority. The Dairy. Board was constituted by Act of Parliament and it would take months or years to do away with it. He did hot consider the matter one of cardinal importance, though it was certainly one for consideration. It need not. be dealt with by the conference and he thought the remit should be referred to the mover to bring forward a constructive policy. He felt th© conference was being asked to vote in the dark, an qction that did not appeal to dairy farmers or anyone else. Suppose the Dairy Division were abolished, how would grading b© dealt with? Was it suggested that, the traders be abolished also? He opposed the remit and hoped it would bo referred back, i . , - MR. SINGLETON’S VIEWS. Mr. W. M. Singleton, Director of the Dairy Division, said two or three speakers had referred to matters he would like to clear up. Reference had been made to the action of seven or eight factories in manufacturing standardised cheese as having led to all the trouble. He wanted to say that the action of those companies in manufacturing as near to the border, line bf dry content as they had was quite legal. They knew now that it had not been in the best interests of the industry and that complaints had been received from retailers. . . , He wished to point out also that it was only last spring that the.department obtained power to deal with the license of a factory making a lower quality article than was deemed necessary i:or the interests of the industry. When th© power was obtained it had been exercised. Instructors had been requested to report upon any factory in regard to which they considered regis-tration-should be reviewed. There had been a real attempt to improve manufacture this season and the instructors had reported that no company’s registration required review. , Mr. Cullen (Mangaturoto.) said he had listened to the discussion and it seemed to him the speakers had come round to opposing rather than supporting the remit. Ho was impressed with the grave- difficulty of any, committee set up arriving at conclusions which i could report to the conference. He thought consideration of so important a question would need weeks of consideration. But while he was impressed, with the difficulties the conference had to face the fact that there was somethinrr desperately wrong with.. the industry. The Government and its officials were looking for a lead. If the conference gave none it as unlikely, that the Government would put restrictions upon anyone. The matter was in i their own hands. Were they going to I accept the. proposed committee, or the, ' later suggestions made that day, or were they going to drift? Were it posI sible to get a well-thought-out opinion from a committee it might do good, but he did not think this was possible. On the motion being put the chairman declared it lost on the voices. A show of hands was demanded. Mr. A. B. Muggeridgi (Alton) suggested that as the matte" was of the utmost importance to cheese factories the voting should be one vote one factory. The chairman: I am going to take a show of hands from all here. I take it you are all representatives Of the' dairy industry. The remit was carried by 137 votes to 98. The following were nominated to the committee: Messrs. Kyle (Kairanga), Free (Mangatoki), Anderson (Cambridge), Roberts (Papatawa), Brechin (Pahiatua), Fisher, Smith,. Bagri© (South island), S’ubbs (Northern Wairoa), Marchant (Cardiff), Grounds (Hokianga), Begley (Heretaunga), Christie (Taitapu), Corrigan (Hawera), Derraer (Cheltenham) and Fci'guso.i (Morrinsville). By 125 votes to 118 the meeting decided that the committee should consist of nine m- ’ rs, and on the motion of Mr. Brechin it was decided Lave their election until to-da'