NEW ZEALAND FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18420, 29 June 1925, Page 9

NEW ZEALAND FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE.

"o' THE EDITOR OF "THE raKSS." Sir.—Being only a very small holder of tho above company's stork, I am not very much interested, financially. Ist any schemes which the management of tho Co-op. may employ to put their business on to a paying l-asis. 1 certainly think, however, thai the proposals to ensure this much to be desired result, as set. out hy the directors in their circular letter to the shareholder*, leaves very much to be desired from the common sense j>oint of view to say nothing about the business side of tho question. 'There has been, at times, tho suggestion that the directorate was composed of gentlemen who were not- "business men" —and, with all due. revpect. to these men, I am sure lhat most people will agree with mo that this last effusion of theirs bears out this contention without the slightest shadow of doubt. The proposed reduction of capital is. unfortunately, unavoidable, and should be given 'effect to, hut tho proposal of the management to commence paying dividends is, to put it very mildly, about us unfortunate a course to pursue- as could possibly be imagined, even in one's most fevered drenms.

The Co-op., as you know, have a. balance of about £ICO,COO on the ■wrong side of their profit and loss ac T count (I am speaking approximately) and owe their preference shareholders a good many thousands of pounds in the way of accumulated interest, and tho best proposal that they can put forward is for a general washing-up of the sharo accounts, so that they may put the company on a dividend paying basis at once. Ono can hardly crodit such an idea emanating from any institution in this position, and the fact that these proposed resolutions bear tho signature of the General Manager is tho only thing that leads tho average business man to conclude that the whole idea is not in tho nature of a , lingo joke—it is so directly opposed to the prudent and safe conduct of business that ono would expect in an institution of the magnitudo and standing of the "Farmers." A number of other big firms hare, at various times, been .forced to write down their capital, and quite a. number of them aro to-day in our midst, and on a> sound and paying basis. This result, I need hardly point out, wa3 not accomplished through their directorate sanctioning all profits going out of the business) | —they had first to do a good deal of herd work and to build up a reserve ; fund as Jin ordinary rational precaution. Lob me suggest to tho sharei holding public that they use a little judgment and insist on safeguarding .their own interests by also creating a reserve fund in.stead of following the ; scheme which tho management -wish them to follow, as tho proposals to be put forward for their endorsement aro entirely lacking in even tho primary elements of 'business safety.—Yours, etc., ' '" EX-BANKEII.

TO TBI EDITOB 01 "THE PEISS." Sir, —For tho last forty year s I have been a consistent supporter of your paper and have never previously worried you with correspondence. But in tho interest of common justice, I feel compelled to enter my emphatic protest against the proposals submitted by tho above Association to its shareholders. Would it bo possible to find a. more loyal body of supporters to its directors tnan lias been the case with this organisation? It seems to me they havo mistaken loyalty for weakness and from all sources ono can hear condemnation of their action of wanting to deprivo tho preference shareholdern of their cumulative rights. It behoves every shareholder, whether ho bo preference or ordinary, for ono depends upon tho other, to vote solid against tho proposal to deprivo tho preference shareholder of his. cumulative rights and not allow them to break a p!edgo which will react on every shareholder, when they want more money and the confidence will bo gone and you can well imagine tho rosurts to alt of us. Tho foundation of all business is conducted in keeping our pledges ono to the other.

I note in your advertising columns a notice to shareholders signed T. N. Gibbs asking shareholders not to forward the proxies to any as a circular Trill shortly be issued to them, and I trust such document will state where wo are to send our proxies.—Yours, etc., A COUNTRY SHAREHOLDER.

TO TIIK EDITOR OP "THE TRESS." Sir, —In connexion with the writing down of the ordinary shares it would appear from the circular issued by the company that the loss to bo borne by shareholders holding partially paid shares is to be greater in proportion than that sustained! by shareholders holding i'ullv paid shares. The shareholder with £IOO invested in £3' paid shares (when pending calls have ben paid) will lose by the reduction about £25 of his invested capita], whereas the fully paid shareholder with the same amount of invested capital will lose only £lo. Ifc would seem more equitable if the reduction was to be made on the basis of say 10 or 20 per cent, of the paid-up capital.—Yours, etc., _ A SMALL SHAREHOLDER.

PROHIBITION AND POLITICS. TO Till! EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —1 have no wish to continue tho correspondence on the points of difference between ourselves, but I should esteem it a favour if you will kindly allow me to reply to a correspondent signing himself "M," whoso letter appeared in your issue of Friday, June 26th. That letter contains a misrepresentation so gross and inexcusable that its cxposuro at the earliest opportunity js urgently called for. Referring to the Prohibition Party, tho writer says:—"Thcv intend to follow the example of U.S.A. and force through Parliament, if they can, a prohibitive measure contrary to the expressed will of the people." Allow me to Say that in that statement there is not u single word of truth. I challenge the writer to produce an atom of evidence in support of such an assertion. The Prohibition Party never has had, and never will have", any other intention than seek to bring about the abolition of the liquor traffic by means of a direct appeal to the will of the people.— Yours, etc.. W. .J. WILLIAMS. June 27th. TO THE EDITOR OP ''THE PRESS." <i,-__-\Vhen tho Rev. Williams was stationed in Nelson, he displayed on a bill-board iu front of his church a bunch of statistics showing Ik.w the sins of drunkenness in Ashburton had decreased sinco Prohibition had be- n enforced there. I was much amused and interested, for tho sins he has no taste for had diminished by half, yet tho illegitimate birth-rate had doubled. There must have been a reason, and ifc seems to me that what the Churches neglect to do, tho as'k tho law to compel people to do. There is no moral or spiritual grace in that. —Yours, etc., NEW ZEALANDEK,