DAIRY BOARD’S REPLY TO MR TIMPANY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17999, 9 November 1926, Page 7

DAIRY BOARD’S REPLY TO MR TIMPANY.

EXPLANATION OF CABLES CONSIDERED BY BOARD. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON. November 9. The New Zealand Dairy' Producers’ Board to-day made the following statement: In connection with Mr Timpany’s further statement, and his admission that he overlooked the cables from Messrs Motion and Grounds, it is officially statetd that those cables were not only read to the board, but every’ member was supplied with a stencilled copy. They were under full discussion together with Mr lorn's cablegram in connection with the resolution inviting the London importers to appoint a committee to act with the London agency. All three messages were largely referred to by the members of the board in that discussion in which Mr Timpanv participated, and the resolution was finally carried unanimously. While Mr Timpany's admission that he overlooked those cablegrams is accepted, it may be regarded as regrettable that the rivetting of his attention on cablegrams which did not reach the board, till in one case some hours later, and in another case the next da3*, caused them to slip from his memory. The cablegram from Mr lorns now mentioned by Mr Timpany' was not required to be included in the acting-chairman’s statement, which was necessarily brief for Press purposes, because the viewpoints expressed involved repetition and duplication of messages already’ received from both Messrs lorns and Patterson and published by Mr Timpany. The cablegrams from Messrs Motion and Grounds presented opposite viewpoints and were therefore vital in relation to the partial statement made by Mr TimMr Timpany’s renewed statement that full consideration was not given to the Prime Minister's message is incorrect. It was fully considered and a long cablegram in reply was drafted and despatched by the board, with Mr Timpany's recorded dissent, although the message embodied resolutions previously passed with his consent. The board fully appreciates the position of the primary producer but does not forget to consider it in relation to the fact of the annual slumps for the past five 3’ears. Those annual slumps, which have been the outcome of unregulated free marketing, will certainly' continue unless the conditions of marketing are altered. The board is concerned to provide a remedy for those conditions by orderly' marketing-adequately supervised in the producers’ interest.