THE MILK SUPPLY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 93, 14 January 1919, Page 3

THE MILK SUPPLY

MR. NORWOOD & MR. BODLEY Reply is made by Councillor C. B. Norwood, chairman of the Special Milk Committee of the City Cuuncil,- to the statements made bv Mr. Henry Bodley, published in The Dominion on Saturday. Mr. Bodley's chief complaint was that the committee, after having tigreed to the formation of a company by four of the principal milk distributing concerns in the city, was making it impossible for this company to be formed until after the milk scheme ■svas in operation. Ho suggested, also, that the committee was not actins fairly with him and those associated with him in this matter of the formation of the company. Mr. Norwood made the following statement in reply to Mr. Bodley :— Mr. Bodley's remarks are misleading in the extreme. ,-He and those associated with him are well aware that the arrangements on the opening of the council's station are to supply all vendors with their requirements of milk, which would be distributed by them as ' though it had been purchased through the usual sources. It was never contemplated, even by Mr. Bodley, that, the company formation would be completed prior to the council opening its new station. As a matter of fact, the council has no power to complete any agreements until January 20, when the \\ar Regulation comes into force. lam confident that Mr. Bodley,. who has; right through been very reasonable, is acting under influelfce. , Mr. Bodley made application on behalf of four vendors for the sole rights of .supplying a block which included just the hpart of the city, and had my committee granted this, request it would have been grossly unfair to the thirtyodd other vendors." . , Councillor Norwood , admitted giving the principal companies mentioned by Mr. Bodley the right to form a company, and it was true, ho said, that the committee, when .requested, undertook, not to' negotiate with the Vendors' Association. "However," continued Councillor Norw,ood. "such was with the ' strict understanding that every yendor would have an equal opportunity to come in. I telephoned to Mr. Reardon .on the morning of January 10, asking him. if he had , circularised the other vendors, and he refused to undertake to do this until tho agreement wag completed. Had I permitted this I would have been powerless to protect the interest? of the outside vendors." • In reference to Mr. Bodley's complaint that the agreement had been delayed, Councillor Norwood stated: "I would like to say emphatically that had the vendors represented by Mr. Bodley approved, with minor alterations, the agreement drawn up by ( their own solicitor,' and had they been reasonable in their request for a block, matters could have been settled and the whole thing ready for signature on the 20th. However, they deleted six vital clauses and then complained be- ; cause my committee refused to accept their proposals in their entirety. The effect would have been to give them a .monopoly and to wipe out the milk shops, and make, those who buy milk for trading purposes pay the full retail .price. Tn.'other words, the council would have had no control whatever over this body, who could, under its own agreement, have left milk 'ready for delivery at four o'clock in the morning until fqur o'clock in the afternoon without taking it away. Any right-thinking person will at onco admit that my committee .would not be • doing its duty to the public, and would be doing an enormous injustice, if itallowed a.email body of men to have its own way. Mr. Brandon says that when the company was formed the small vendors would be admitted. That may bo, so, hut it is my duty as chairman of the committee to sec that there is no possible doubt on this point. Besides, surely the, small, vendors have , a right to consider. the terms of the agreement. Summarised, I might state the position as follows: Under this small combination, which, Tarn sorry to say, has not kept tho spirit of the understanding, agrees: (I) To a moderate differential rate for the wholesale and retail supply; (2) to'control, by the council, of the hours of delivery; (3) to a scheme which will satisfy the committee that every vendor has an equal opportunity, no agreement will be arrived at." • ■ . \

Mr. Bodley has returned to the attack, and he has submitted a written statement of fact and opinion of which the following is an abridgment :—Mr. Bodley denies that he is making his protest under, the influence of anybody. He denies that the four big firm's have any intention of oppressing the thirty weak ones. On the contrary the four linns would not be strong at all in view of thennbridled powers to be given to the City Council's committee. Tho four firms were people with big interests at stake, and the committee, after having come to the conclusion that the others could not bn ; treated with—this on account of action taken with them in dealing with the committee—asked the four firms to act. He denies that he is guilty of "tergiversation" as accused by Mr. Norwood, and 111 turn accuses Mr. Norwood of tergiversation. In reply to the point made by Mr. Norwood about the claim of the company to a: block in tho heart of the city, Mr. Bodley says that the is that the committee has accepted the proposal of the company subject to certain amendments found necessary in working but the detail of the blocking system. Nor does he admit that there is anything in the poir-t which Mr. Norwood sought to make about the time of claiming of' milk from the station. Mr. Bodley says that the 1 time has already, been fixed, and it is not in dispute. Also ho denies that there is any doubt as to the terms of working fIR affecting, wholesale supnlies. Rates are fixed for the work of distribution, and,they will have no concern with the selling price. That is the council's affair. And Mr. Bodley" says he scorns to reply to some of Mr. Norwood's other matter, declaring it "very good camouflage, but poor stuff to dignify with a serious reply."