THE MILK QUESTION AGAIN

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 6, 2 October 1920, Page 7

THE MILK QUESTION AGAIN

—-—o - ME. STB AND IN REPLY. (To the Editor.) Sir;—l.should like personally to reply to Mr. A. Jauiiesoji, but will not trouble about people' who hide under a non de plume.. I regret that this matter should have to comi/ to the personal, but when I first •wrote'to your paper I knew that this would be the case. lam therefore prepared for it, having even taken, the precaution of obtaining the evidence as given before. the Board of Trade when the pikes of milk wero last set before Wellington. ■ As the hospital is a public institution; the price I was obtaining for miik supplied there has never been a, secret. The arrangement--to be exact—is that I was to recoivo the same price for my milk delivered in Wellirgton .as that' charged by the City Council to the companies delivering milk in Wellington; that is, for a full supply, summer and winter. Some time ago I reduced this price, by 5 per cent., and when the large increases wo now receive wero being arranged, I agreed to. continue at the old rates for the year through. Yes, I have some good leasehold land, and the last two places I took up were by public tender, and wero leased in the open market, but have been very much improved. My herds I try to make ns good as possible,. but I do not employ cheap labour. I employ good men, and am proud of tliera, and endeavour—as far as possible—to see that they can live as comfortably as myself. lam not working for nothing, and do not wish anyone else to do so. Sir, the attiludo I have taken with' regard to the hospital milk supply was to obtain equal to the ' ruling wholesale prices, plus the extra expenses and trouble connected with the supply (this being as great a quantity in winter as

in summer). If I were to base •. the price I should now 1m receiving for tho milk on the evidence as given before the Hoard of Trade, tf gether with the extra cost of producing winter milk, it should be Is. ild. and one-sixth pence per gallon for the year through. The statement by Mr. Jamieson that

the City Council pays tho supplier Is; 4d. per gallon, coupled with the Dominion's statement that the Hospital Board paid Jfr. Strand Is. 9d..per gallon, creates a wrong impression. The price-paid by the City Council to the farmer is Is. 4d. for seven months in tho year onlyj for two months it is Is, Gd., for the remaining three months 2s. These figures average for the year Is. G|d. As the Is. 9d. paid to me by th« "Hospital Board is subject to 5 per cent, off, the Is. 9d. is reduced to Is. Bd., which is ljd. in excess. of tho average (Is. Old.) paid by the City Council to its suppliers. Someone may ask, "Why this difference. of lid.?" Tho answer is that under my terras with the Hospital Board, I have to maintain a winter production of milk equal in volume to the summer productipn, and, as everyone knows, winter producing is much more costly. Tho City' Council would be very glad to make, a contract with any 'supplier for a 59 per cent, winter production. I give tho, Hospital Board a 100 per cent, winter production. In other wards in the season when milk production is difficult I do not diminisli .my •supply to the hospital. Over and above that, the City Council is paying theseprices to its suppliers at somo loss to itself. The City Council's Milk Committee is doing the best it can in the circumstances, but so far there is a margin of loss, which the Council itself pays, and this must be taken into consideration when quoting the prices it pays to suppliers.

To that the council is •charging tlio vending companies 2s. per gallon, and jiaying tho suppliers Is. 4d., suppressing the facts quoted above about ■ the Is. od. and 25., is unfair to the council. The 2s. charged by the' council is a fixed price for tlio whole year, and during a portion of that time tho City Council is actually paying more for the inilk than-it receives.

I am turning four-fifths of my herds into winter milkers. Need I say more? Sir. Editor, to put an end to the personal, I now-offer any milk producer who likes to-take it up tlio hospital supply, provided he will satisfy tho Health Department as to quantity and quality for file year through, and I myself will continue to supply the much abused City Council find be just as well off.

Mr, Editor, the real issues lave not yet been touched. Is it right or wrong that tho people of New Zealand should have to-pay' for what they consume at tho same rate as famine-stricken Europe? Will our children have to go short of milk because wo can obtain largo prices for butter overseas? Will our towns have to go without milk during tlio winter because wo can make a good tiling by summer production only? If bo, it will only widen the breachalready wide enough—between town and country .dwellers.

Not one of your readers has—up to the present—tried to explain why the price of dairying land keeps increasing in value, if dairying is such a bad business. Should 'not the increases in tho land values bo an ■nsset? If not, 'and we continue on present lines, wlioro will it lead? , Does it nob seem deplorublo that so . many of our leading and business men should say it must continue, this' way until a smash comes? It teems to me almost unthinkable that we in New Zealand—a mere handful of people—cannot find ways and means of settling our differences without resorting hi brute force. Arc we in tTSe early stages of tho twentieth conturv going to revolt back to tho system, of tho survival of tho fittest? Are we going to trample underfoot the advantages our fathers worked so hard io procure for us?. In short, arc we goine to recogniso the brotherhood of man with tlie right for all to have a fair chanco to live in comfortable and sanitary surroundings? -I am, etc.,

W. T. STRAND. ' . Lower Ilutt. Lower ilutt, October 1, 1920.