“COMPULSORY MARKETING”

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 183, 5 May 1925, Page 10

“COMPULSORY MARKETING”

Sir, —If vou will again allow me to take up a 'little of vour valuable space, I should like to reply to Mr. Grimsdale Anderson’s letter which appeared in your issue of May 1. Mr. Anderson considers that the national compulsory service adopted in New Zealand is analogous to the Dominion confiscation by “compulsion” of the national rights, privileges, and living of those who differ from him on this question. Surely Mr. Anderson is aware that the Great War was forced upon us because the rights of minorities were ruthlessly trampled upon, and we as partners in our Great Empire believed that the rights of minorities must be protected and that we in common with the Empire poured out our wealth and gave out manhood to protect those who were unjustly and unfairly attacked. Therefore, if there is any analogy in Air. Anderson’s statement, it must be that all right-minded people will band themselves together and light politically to prevent the New Zealand “Kaiser’s” policy of “Iron and Blood” being ruthlessly applied to those who object to “compulsion.” Mr. Anderson says that the uninformed producer is competing with organised trusts and combines much to his disadvantage. Can Mr. Anderson enumerate one dairy produce trust or combine operating in New Zealand? He knows that his statement lias no foundation in fact, and he also knows that the Board of Trade has full power to prevent anv such illegal action as the setting up or operating of any such trust or combine, so why try to so wrongly influence otlitr producers in this manner? Air. Anderson argues that the control police was carried by a majority of those voting. This is correct ; but let me give the figures so that we mar see where we ijtand; There were 511,000 suppliers on the voting roll —22,281 voted in favour of control, 9'255 voted against control. 21,232 did not register their votes. Air. .Anderson claims that silence gives consent; but he must realise that when the vote was taken there was no thought of “absolute control” being put into effect. That this is so is evidenced bv the expression of opinion al! over New Zealand, and Air. Anderson is surely aware that all our leading newspapers have taken the view that “compulsion” was not considered to be within the range of possibility when the Act was passed, but that control—which means leadership, organisation, satisfactory arrangement of shipping and insurance rates, storage efficiency, advertising, etc. —was the unwritten essence of the whole Act. That the appointment to the London Agencv of the Control Board must be the best obtainable irrespective of salary, I heartily concur; but does Mr. Anderson mean to imply that the appointment of two farmers to the Loudon Agencv comes within Ins line of thought? If so, 1 regret that I cannot march with him any part of the wav. I know of several farmer-run concerns in this country which have a capital of about two and a quarter millions, and which have not paid anv dividend for at least three years, with the exception of one, which lately paid 3 per cent. Does such management by farmers warrant the appointment of two farmers to manage a huge turnover of £20,000,000 annually? Can we afford such an experiment wfth so much at stake ? Mr. Anderson states that the work of the Aleat Control Board is disappointing. I must certainly express surprise at this statement, as from what I can glean, I understand that this is a unanimous board which is' doing good sound work without any disturbance, and all in the interests of the producers.

Finally I can only sav that if the freedom for which we fought is to be maintained, reason must prevail, and there must be no bludgeoning of minorities. —I am, etc., SJBuILRNitt) RGLDLEP