THE FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE.
TO THR EDITOR OP "THt TBESS." f,i,-.i_Thc ship that wcr.theis the fiercest gales before which other minor and weaker craft succumb must be sound at bottom and have a great future'before it. Such is the Farmers' Co-op. Still it lives and must, without those handicaps, prosper apace. It -s under a new management and is virtually a new business. Public confidence is* being restored and will increasingly tell if it is not rudely and unnecess:rilv shaken bv commercial immorality 'in the supposed intercuts ot the Association. The volume of business has so increased of late, and the big concern has been so reorganised from top to bottom, that the coming balance-sheet may he much more satisfactory than the last one. Two tilings are admittedly necessary to place tne stability of the Association beyoml question, and, as the directors say, enable it to pav dividends to all classes of shareholders. One is the taking ot the preference arrears out of the way and the other is the writing of los oit the ordinr.rv shares. The abolition ot the cumulative preference right, so much objected to as a breach of faith, may bo left out of account, It only concerns the distant future and a rainy dav that may not come. It is not necessary for the present stability, lhe Article of Association on which the directors probably rely for the carrying of this novel proposal requires a threequarters majority of shareholders. They will not get that except the shareholders are caught napping and large numbers of them blindly send in their prosy votes to be <|Lsnosed of by some official as he thinks fit. Let us hope that the opening of your columns to this discussion and the condemnatory resolution passed recently by the Stock Exchange will do something to prevent this. The abolition of the cumulative right would do more than diminish the value of the preference shares, even in the most prosperous times, without the compensating advantage held out to the ordinr.rv shareholders. It would deal a blow at the institution itself. But the preference shareholders need not worry overmuch. They have tme hall of eqnitv at their feet to score a goal for the Association. No law, article ot association, or resolution of shareholders can confiscate anyone's arrears without his own consent, as the Canterbury Orchardists' Co-op. found out lately at their annual meeting. The preference- shareholders have the sole right to say what shall be done with their arrears. If they all, by an act of generosity, decide to make a present of them to the Association, well and good. That will avoid confiscation. They, can, in doing so, stipulate that the. - cumulative rights stand as they did when they were purchased. If 'they, instead of this, decide that tho arrears must be capitalised and ordinary shares fully paid up must be allotted to each according to the amount of arrears due to him. le?s tho las being written off the book' value of all ordinary shares, they can make the same stipulation. It' will be found when each class of shareholders meets separately to vote upon their own interests and, property the preference shareholders, consistently with their having started and strengthened the Association, will bo able to secure that justice shall be done to all classes of shareholders, themselves included, and pitfalls injurious to all avoided. AH honest and fair-minded shareholders, however, must stick together, and, while honouring the management, guard against sophistry or the confidence trick. T.et preference and ordinary shareholders r:like. in the interests of commercial morality, avoid confiscation of property or a breach of trust, seek to gain the confidence of the public, and place the Farmers' Co-oy. upon a. sound financial '■ and moral basis.-r-Yours, etc., AN -ORDINARY SHAREHOLDER.
TO THE EDITOR OF "THB PJIES3." Sir, —Every preference shareholder in the above-named Association owes "The Press" a debt of gratitude for giving space to publicly protesting against the forfeiture of their preference. rights, which,-as a result of such published protest, has been abandoned by the company's directors. It is now stated by the directors that if the preference shareholders agree to forfeit their claim to two and a half years' dividends, ending January 21st, 1923, the company will commence paying preference dividends for the half-year ending July 21st, 1925. This promise to pay dividends is inconsistent with the statement that the company cannot pay dividends while the preference dividends arc owing; for this reason—that owing those dividends has not cost the company anything in funds, nor do accumulated debts to preference shareholders prevent the company from earning profits, but rather the reverse, as the company is now practically having (except in name) the free use of half a million pounds sterling in these preference shares, as it has had for the past three years. I trust 3 r ou will grant me space to warn preference shareholders not to vote for forfeiting the dividends owing, by reason of the promise of the company voluntarily paying this forfeited back debt in years to come when ordinary £5 shares, about to ue rediced to four pounds five shillings, shall, by vote, bo restored to their original amount in name of £5. There will never bo any benefit in restoring the shares to five pounds in name which would not increase the earning power of the sum in hand, and the incentive of ordinary shareholders would bo not to restore the shares to five pounds each in name and render them under liability of paving this forfeited two and a half years' preference dividends. The correspondent, "A Shareholder of the First Fifty," in your issue today, describes very clearly the great and profitable advantage received by the ordinary shareholders for a lengthy period of years; consequently it is absurd to describe their writing down five pound shares to four pounds five shillings (resulting in no loss in the amount of dividend) as an equal sacrifice with preference shareholders being asked to forfeit two and a half dividends (about seventy-five thousand pounds), after having received only two years' dividends. The whole of the subscribed capital of the original shareholders amounted to only four hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds, and these shareholders should be for ever grateful to the preference shareholders for providing more than half a million pounds when the company was in urgent need of help five years ago, and without which sum it is difficult to see how the company could have continued operating, as disclosed by the annual reports of losses of more than three hundred thousand pounds on business transactions entered into prior to the issue of the preference shares. Consequently, preference shareholders should vote unanimously against forfeiting the dividends due, as these dividends once forfeited are lost for all time. A suggestion was made in the correspondence in your columns on this matter that this overdue preference dividend should be capitalised, and I believe this would be accepted, by preference shareholders, and involve no immediate payment by the company, but it does.not sdem to recommend itself to the directors, who are so desirous of extinguishing the debt by forfeiture.— Yours, etc., B PREFERENCE SHAREHOLDER. jChristchurcb, July, Ist, 192^
THE HALF-HOLIDAY LAW. TO THS EDITOR 0? "THE TRESS." Sir, —A report appeared in tho daily Press last week of remarks made to the Hon. G. J. Anderson, Minister of Labour, by a deputation of shop-keep-ers from New Brighton, in relation to tho action of tho Arbitration Court in enforcing the observance of Saturday as the day of the weekly half-holiday within a radius of ten miles of the G.P.0., Christchurch, which includes New Brighton- and Sumner. These New Brighton shop-keepers appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Arbitration Court, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of tho Court of Arbitiation, hence the visit to the Minister of Labour at Wellington, with a request, in effect that he should be the author of an amendment to the Shops and Offices Act, which would nullity the award of the Court .of Arbitration. Apparently tho Minister lent a willing ear to the deputation, because he is reported to have stated "That he would consult Cabinet upon tho advisability of altering the law in regard to people like shop-keepers, so that when tho people expressed a preference, no higher authority could override their decision." "It is quite possible," said the Minister, "that wo may he able to effect an apiendment to the Shops and Offices Act this Session, because there have been a number of clauses inserted in awards which have created a great deal of trouble amongst the people concerned." "The Act" the Minister stated, "laid down certain hours during which shops should close, but the Court bad power to vary that, and it had 'done so. This had caused trouble in some cases. I cannot alter tho award of the Court added the Minister, "and it would be. wrong for me to attempt to do so. 1 would not be a party to such a thing. It would be much tho same as legislating to alter a decision of tho Supreme Court." The Minister stated that u it was laid down in the Act, that the half-holiday Was to be observed on a certain day, an injustice would be done to many people, including the farmers, who preferred to come to town on a Saturday. He considered that when the half-holiday was decided by a poll of the people, their decision should stand. He did not think that the Arbitration Act should be able to affect it. .. The Minister promised to consider the matter and consult Cabinet as to the possibility of altering the law along the lines he had indicated. . We desire on behalf of the Christchurch Grocers' Assistants' Union, to express Tegret that the Minister of Labour has deemed it incumbent to criticise the decision of the Arbitration Court for surely if anyone in the country should uphold the decision of that tribunal in its interpretation of tho law, that person is the Minister in charge of the Labour Department, and it is obviously improper for the Minister, who is not a lawyer, to suggest to tho Court the manner m which it should interpret and applv tho law, especially as in this case, after hearing a deputation of interested litigants whose views were rejected by the Court of Appeal, the highest Court m the land, and without ascertaining the views of the other side. As this matter has created considerable public interest, it is desirable that the public should know both sides of the question. The facts are, that when the North Canterbury Grocers Assistants' Award was made, the Court was asked bv the Master Union and tho Grocers' Assistants Union to fix Saturday as the half-holi-day within the city and suburban area, which was taken as comprising the area within 10 mile's from Cathedral square. Within that area at least three separate half-Holidays were< in force, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. In tho greater part of tho aroa, including
the City of Christclmreh, Saturday was a half-holiday. The application for a universal Saturday half-holiday was concurred in by all employers of grocers' assistants at Smnner ana New Brighton, but was objected to by a number of grocers who did not employ assistants! Now Section 69' of the Shops and Offices Act was specially passed to enable tho Court to deal with such a position as this. It empowers the Arbitration Court to fix universal closing hours for a whole industrial district, the whole of Canterbury for example, or for any portion ot that district. The Court heard all the arguments and evidence that was forthcoming, and gave its decision. It said in its judgment: "The Court ha* no desire to administrate Section 69 of the Shops and Offices Act 1921-22 in an arbitrary manner, but it cannot lose sight of the fact, that the object of the section, is to place on an equal footing shops, that are* in competition with one another, and that this soniftimes involves the over-riding of conflicting local customs within a limited area." The Court also said: "We are satisfied after hearing the evidence of a, number of witnesses that there is no reason to fear that the observance of Saturday as a weekly half-holiday will cause any undue hardship. Those employers in tho outlying parts of tin? area who gave Saturday closing a trial expressed themselves as quite satisfied with the result." Tho decision of the Court of Arbitration came before the Court of Appeal in April last, when that Court held, not only that it could not interfere with the decision of tho Arbitration Court, hut also, that the latter Court had rightly interpreted Section 69 of the Shops and Offices Act. If the Minister had withheld any comment on the decision of the Court of Arbitration until he had ascertained the full facts of the case, he would probably have been prevented from committing such an indiscretion. Such an attitude tends to bring tho Court into disrepute among people- who are unaware of the facts. Surely if the law is at fault, as suggested by the Minister, the proper remedy is to amend it, instead of criticising the judgment given by a Court, which in the opinion of the highest Court in the land, has correctly interpreter! the law as it stands. If the law is altered at all, it should be in the direction of a Dominion universal half-holiday.—Yours, etc., W. J. OREEN\ Secretary Grocers' Assistants' Union. Trades Hall, July Ist.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19250702.2.97.1
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18423, 2 July 1925, Page 12
Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,267THE FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE. Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18423, 2 July 1925, Page 12
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.