“VOTE! VOTE!” THEY CRIED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17833, 29 April 1926, Page 15

“VOTE! VOTE!” THEY CRIED.

DAIRY MEN HOLD LIVELY MEETING.

ONE SECTION WALKED OUT AFTER UPROAR.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 28. The conference of dairy companies, called by the Dairy Control Board at the instance of the Government, and held in the concert chamber of the Town Hall to-day, was lively, even stormy at times. The first clash was on the question of chairmanship, Mr W. Grounds, of the Board of Control, presiding ex officio. A section of the meeting wanted the meeting to elect its own chairman, and a motion was moved to that effect. Mr Grounds said the resolution before the meeting was altogether irregular The Dairy Control Board had received a request from the Minister to make arrangements for a conference, and for the conduct of the proceedings. The responsibility for the conference, and for the conduct of the conference was upon the board. (Cries of “ Hear, hear” and much dissent.) From a personal point of view, declared Mr Grounds, no one would wish more than he that he should be on the floor of the House. Voices: Come down here then. Mr Grounds said he took the responsibility as a duty, and in his opinion, and in the opinion of members of the board, it was incumbent on the board to appoint the chairman for the meeting. It was a duty devolving on the board and on him, as the principal executive officer, to select the chairman. The resolution before the meeting was quite irregular. The conference would have to proceed on the lines that had been-laid down. (Applause and disAfter further discussion, and not a little disorder, Mr Grounds read the authority of the Minister for the board calling the meeting, and ruled out of order any proposal that the meeting elect its own chairman. To this the meeting submitted under protest. MINISTER SPEAKS. Mr Grounds then asked the Minister of Agriculture to address the gathering. The Hon O. Hawken .said there was no industry so large or progressive as the dairy industry. That was largely due to the dairymen themselves. The meeting had been called to assist the Government in working out a system of the election of the members of the Dairy Control Board. The dairymen had brought the Act into force, and he did not think that the Government was likely to interfere unduly with the business of the dairymen. The members of the board had been fairly representative of all districts up to now, but they wished to guard against any mistakes in future. SINGLE WARD SYSTEM. Mr W. Veitch. M.P.. gave notice to move, and Mr Sinclair to second - ” That, this meeting of dairy companies expresses its emphatic desire that the members of the Dairy Control Board l»e elected on a democratic basis of the single ward system, six wards for the 1 North Island and six wards for the South Island: one producer one vote.” Addressing the conference. Mr Grounds said that, for the moment, he was not the chairman 1 of the Control Board, and he would endeavour to be entirely impartial. He hoped any motions submitted would be classified. They were all aware of the various svstems of the control system and the ward svs tern. He recognised that, of late, a good deal of feeling had been infused into the question, but he hoped that personalities and feelings of any sort would be discarded, lie would endeavour to give everybody an opportunity of expressing their views. He appealed to the delegates to assist the chairman in conducting the meeting and expressed the hope that at the end of the meeting, no matter what the conclusions, the delegates would have acted in a manner worthy of the industry, lie suggested that the first part of Mr Vciteh’s motion, referring to the word system, could be put and dealt with, and the second section could a taken later. A TEST QUESTION. Mr Veitch, in moving his motion, said the subject had been thoroughly well discussed, and the meeting understood the position. The motion was really a test of whether the volume of interests individual interests should control the industry. In every country outside Russia the individual had much more at stake than the man who had large interests. Tho small farmer, whoso finances were weak, and who was struggling under a load of big weight, had as much at stake as the man who had, say, 157 votes. The one man, one vote, principle had been in vogue in New Zealand for very many years. Whoever heard of a member of Parliament being elected as the result of wealthy men having more votes than poor men? Every dairy fanner was taxed for the. administration of the Dairy Control Board, and they should have representation. He was quite willing that the motion should be submitted to the meeting in two sections. RIGHT TO VOTE. The motion was seconded bj* Mr A. J. Sinclair (To Awamutu), who said that the resolution had been carried at u meeting yesterdaj*, largely representative of dairy farmers. They were determined not to forfeit their right to vote to the directors of the dairy factories. The individual farmer should have the. right to say who should sit on the board. After a number of speakers had ventilated their views on the motion, with more, or less freedom of speech, in which there was much discussion around the words "one producer, one vote,” the chairman put the motion with the words “one producer, one vote” left out A show of hands was demanded. The. chairman said the roll would have to be called. Mr Mine: On a tonnage basis? The chairman said the motion had been carried. A SECTION WITHDRAWN. Mr Sinclair challenged the chairman's ruling. He called upon all who protested against this action, and all who agreed with him, to retire. This was done, and a large part of the meeting withdrew. Mr Grounds remarked that what had taken place showed very clearly that the business would never have got past the question of the basis of the vote. Mr T. R corrigan having demanded a division, the scrutineers took the vote by the roll In reply to a question, Mr Grounds said the motion would read as Mr Veitch proposed it. but omitting the words, “One producer, one vote.” The result of the roll call on the motion as amended was: For 773, against i :i.\ Total votes SOS.

The individual votes, said the chairman, were: Ayes 227, Noes 9. Replying to Mr Corrigan, the chairman said he thought there wore till) votes on the roll.

Mr Routledgo moved as an amendment that consideration of the motion before the meeting be deferred until the conference determined the basis of voting. Until the basis of voting was settled they should not decide on the system to be used. BASIS OF VOTING. The amendment was seconded by Mr Fisher and carried, with one dissentient voice. Mr Rutledge moved then that the basis of voting for the membership of the Dairy Control Board should be on the basis of the export tonnage of butter and cheese, on a sliding scale of one ton of butter being equal to two tons of cheese. He advocated voting oil a tonnage basis. It was all-important to the men engaged in the dairying industry that they should have the sole right to decide who should control their produce. They had heard a lot about the disfranchisement of suppliers, but it had to be borne in mind that the suppliers themselves elected the directors. The motion was seconded by Mr Harding, who said the only sound basis was that those whom the suppliers elected as directors should have the right to vote. The sliding scale could be made to safeguard the rights of the small man. Mr Corrigan supported the resolution. It was absolutely necessary that the people who provided the funds should have the say as to how the board should be elected. The only fair basis was the tonnage basis. All that was asked for was that every man supplying a factory should be placed on a fair basis of representation. MADE A MESS. Mr J. B. Barnett Linkwater advanced the opinion that Parliament, having made a mess of things so far in respect to the system of voting, wished for some direction from the conference as to the lines upon which to proceed. Mr J. Dunlop (Rimu) agreed to an optional but not compulsory vote pi suppliers. Mr T. Moss (Newman) said that in listening to some of the stuff talked at the conference he felt almost ashamed that he was a factory director. It was most unfair to attack the directors as had been done. His own suppliers had come to him and said: “We know nothing of this. How would you advise us?" What was the use of a vote if it was not an intelligent one. Cries of “Vote!” “Vote!" interrupted further would-be speakers. The question was resolved into a motion in favour of the directors' direct vote and an amendment for a compulsory suppliers’ vote. A division upon this issue resulted in the amendment being defeated by 558 votes to 212. The resolution was then carried on the voices. APPRECIATION EXPRESSED. Mr J. B. Cow (Coromandel> then moved: “ That this conference desires to place on record its appreciation of work done on behalf of the dairy industry by the Dairy Control Board, and endorses its decision to bring into operation absolute control in August next.” Mr Rutledge seconded the motion. He said that the chairman had stood up against an unscrupulous propa ganda. The. boarctyhaG saved the companies many The resolution with only one dissentient.. • Mr Grounds wdts cheered as he rose to reply. Ho thanked ah concerned for the fum. _ ,There was no question its to tjh* course of the Itoard and the fact thi\t t.hpy were getting nearer to the tJ&k had not deterred them in thenfe^a'flpimination to see through what t.hcTmluStry desired. He refuted the that, he said, had been mime against the socalled* Bolshevik or Socialistic policy of the board. Development had to be kept pace with. There were dangers, and the opponets of the board who hud been inflaming the public mind would have to take cure lest they create a more serious position by adding still another fire to those which had already been kindled. The board wished to serve the industry. When they had done that to the point desired, they would be satisfied that the board had gained its point. It was decided that a committee place the resolutions of the meeting before the Prime Minister. DISSENTERS HOLD SEPARATE MEETING.

Those dissenting to the conduct of the meeting held a separate meeting, saying that they had stood enough. They claimed that the numerical force of those who left was eighty-three. They represented 113 factories and 21,204 tons of butter and 11,693 tons of cheese, and 40 per cent of the producers of the Dominion. Motions were carried protesting against the mode of election, at MiGrounds as chairman, favouring the single ward system of election, each delegate having one vote for every butter and cheese factory represented by him. Mr Veitch was voted to the chair. The meeting endeavoured to arrange a meeting with Mr Coates, who said that he could not see them until the other meeting had concluded. They will wait on the Prime Minister to-morrow.