ATTITUDE OF DAIRY FARMERS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 100, 21 January 1918, Page 6

ATTITUDE OF DAIRY FARMERS

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln fairness to the public and to myself, I feel it a duty to reply briefly to certain statements in connection with the milk problem.

In the first place it appears to me that the Mayor has made a change of attitude. Up to the time that the report of the Special Committee was submitted, His Worship was insistent on the necessity of tho council assuming a control of the milk supply of Wellington to ensure a pure supply for the public. To achieve that object lie obtained the consent of the City Council to the erection of a clearing station. The necessity for that step be r ing taken was duo to a threat made by the Dairy Farmers' Association that unless facilities were provided in Wellington to enable consignments of association milk to be made at a convenient place, and where the farmers' cans could be cleaned for return to the farmer, milk available for the city would be diverted by the Dairy Farmers' Association to dairy factories. ' The Mayor makes no denialf.of this threat to starve the city of its milk supply. Ho makes no denial of this threat being the reason for the ratepayers' nionoy being expended on a building and equipment which it was clear could not be a success if tho arrangements proposed up to the day of opening the milk station were insisted on. It is not necessary to detail matters under this head, but to lay emphasis on the fact that the Mayor persisted in going on with the scheme despite provision tor charging the working expenses of the scheme to the responsible persons, despite Ministerial sanction (an important provision), and despite the statement of the Chief Health Officer that in his opinion the provisions of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act would not be complied with if the arrangements proposed by the City Council for conducting the milk station were carried out. After tho fiasco on the opening day of tho milk station the eyes of His Worship wore opened, and lie saw difficulties which before he would not see. Now, and with the ieport of the Special Committee still before tho Health Committee, His Worship proposes handing the milk station over to dairy fanners for management by them. What interest or right have these men to tho use of the building and equipment; What right has the Mayor to cause the ratepayers' money to be used by dairy farmers who, as far as I know, have no interosts in the city as ratepayers f It the dairy farmers want a depot for cleaning their cans and making deliveries to vendors from, surely it is for them to provide the depot at their own expense. I think lam right in saying that the Dairy Farmers' Association promised a contribution of £200 to tho City Council if such a depot was provided by tho City Council, but as the City Council went further and made, or attempted to make, a bearing house, the Dairy Farmers' Association did not hand over its £200. The fact that the Mayor is seeking to get out of a difficult position is plain. As one of the Special Committee I entered a vigorous protest against the proposal submitted to me, as in my opinion that proposal was in no way connected with! tho Teport submitted by Messrs. Oliver, Ward, and mysclt. As far as 1 knew, the Health Committee had the report under consideration, awaiting further information. It is news to me to learn on reading the ! Mayor's remarks that I was requested ! to withdraw from Friday's meeting that the others attending the conference might discuss two sides of a question I that my own business was involved in." I was aeked by the Mayor wb.otb.er my company's plant was capable of pasteurising the whole of the city's milk. I answered "Yes." I want it made clear that 1 made no offer of my company's premises or plant to the City Council, and.desire to contradict the statement made by Mr. Ward that I offered as a further proposal certain privato premises, and that as 1 was interested in this proposition 1 was asked to retire while the Mayor and Councillor Wright considered the proposal, I Mr. Oliver and Mr. Ward remaining as advisers to the council. Surely in such case Mr. Ward would have relired whilst the proposal to hand the clearing holme to the farmers was discussed. J I stated that if preference was to be given to any section, it should rbu extended to vendors possessing proper equipment for handling large supplies, provided adequate facilities for inspection were made. Jt is amusing to read that Mr. Strand charges vendors •.vith doing all in their power to prevent the City Council making improvements to the milk supply of Wellington. .Would I Mr. Strand care for me to give more I information to tho public and City Council regarding the Dairy Farmers' Association's connection with the supply of milk to the dty and their dealings with vendors;- , Mr. Strand shows little regard for the public interest when he refers to meat passing through abattoirs and comparing that to the milk question. He contends thot tho City Council's responsibility will end when the fanner gets his clearance at the milk station. Quito so. That ap. pearS'to he what the Farmers' Association is working for, and apparently the public interest is quite a secondary consideration. Mr. Strand makes no suggestion that will prevent the public receiving sour milk.—l am, etc., Jl. H. WILLIAMS.