MR MOTION’S STATEMENTS QUESTIONED.

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 727, 2 May 1922, Page 4

MR MOTION’S STATEMENTS QUESTIONED.

(To the Editor)

Sir, —Our attention has been drawn to a report, published in the “Franklin Times” of 21st inst., of a meeting of cream suppliers held in PukeV kohe on Good Friday eve. At this meeting Mr Motion is reported to have stated that we sent out a circular advising buyers that we wera selling first grade butjter at one penny per lb below the price fixed by the Auckland Butter Distributors’ Association ; and thait by this “breaking of faith” we “collared” 600 toi 700 boxes per week of the N.Z. Co-* Op. Dairy Company’s Auckland trade* In the endeavour! to make it appear that butter sold at one penny per lb below the price fixed for first grade butter, was really first grade butter ai\ that ithis was our “method o 5 conniving a scheme to collar” N.Z* Co.Op Company’s business, Mr Motion is reported to have stated that according fto the “articles” of the Auck* land Butter Distributors’ Association the minimum difference in price between first and second grade butter, was fixed ait twopence per. lb. Mr Motion, in the endeavour to justify the action of his company which has been so inimical to producers’ interests, has made statements which have no foundation in facts. To effectuality refute such accusations we have had a thorough investigation made of our books of account by a leading fimi of public accountants, whose report is here quoted :

“Acting upon instructions received fr.om Messrs C. Aickin and Sons, Auckland, we have thoroughly investigated their transactions in Opoltiki butter from 14th October, 1921, td 22nd March, 1922, this being the period during which, we understand, the prices of butter were fixed by the Auckland Butter Distributors’ Asso-i ciation.

“Messrs Aickin and Sons have placed the whole of their books and ire* cords at our disposal, and as a result of our investigations, we certify td the > following : S 1. All butter "eturned by iSfesSrs Aickin and Sons in account sales to [the Opotikx Dairy Association, Ltd., for the above period as first grade, has been charged by Messrs Aickin and Sons to their, customers at the ruling price agreed upon by the Auckland Butter Distributors’ Association.

2, The whole of the buSter charged through Messrs Aickin and Sons butter sales book is butter that was sold on behalf of the Opotlki Dairy Association, Ltd, and we find no record in Messrs Aickin and Sons* books of any butter tthap Opotiki: having been sold by them during that period of 14th October, 1921, to 22ncfl March, 1922. ]

3. The proportion of second brand butter charged, during the period, at one penny per lb below the ruling price for first brands is 9 per cent, of the total sales for the period..

4. The proportion of second bran< butter charged, during the period, a' twopence per. lb below Ithe ruling price for first brands is 9.2 per centj of the total sales for the period.

5. The quantity of butlter charge* through Messrs Aickin and Son* books to their customers during th above period at one penny and twq pence per lb respectively below ithj .ruling price for first brands tallid exactly with the quantity teturnel in each case in Messrs Aickin anl Sons’ account sales Ito the OpotiM Dairy Association, Ltd, for the sanj period. I

6. Messrs Aickin and Sons’ rel tionship to the Opotiki Dairy Associ tion, Ltd., is (that of agent to print; pal, Messrs Aickin and Sons handliij the company’s butter on a comissifl basis.

7. Messrs Aickin and Sons’ s&l of Opotiki butter for the 'period d der review were 20 per cent, in e cess of he sales for the corresponl ing period of the previous year. Thl this is not abnormal is borne ol by the fact 'that for the two previol years the average increase for tj same period was 22.9 per cent. I

8. At no time in the period unc review (that is from 14th Octob 1921, to 22nd March, 1922,) d Messrs Aickin and Sons’ sales of I brands of butteq combined, reacH total of 600 boxes in any one wel nor did their sales of second brd at one penny per lb below the rulj price r't any time exceed 73 boxes! one week. I 9. We find that the first rule! the Auckland Butter Distribute

I v Association fixes a minimum price at [which members shall sell their recognised standard brands of butter to ptores, such prices being called “ruling prices'’ and that for second [brands, pats and buKk, there shall be la minimum of one penny and a maxipium of twopence per lb, off the said bailing prices, and we find these expressions and terms constantly used in the duly confirmed minutes of the meetings where such minutes refer to price alterations.” (Sigped) Robinson & Wallace, Pey H. C. Robinson.” Other statements' attributed to Mr Moition in the “Times” of 21st April, would make it appear that we trafficked in Southern butter, which we sold at 2d per lb below fixed prices. The accountants’ report above quoted proves the worthlessness of such an argument, while the advertised retail price in the N.Z, Herald of 10th and 11th April dispose of the statement that cutting prices had ended and that the difference in the prices of Opotiki and N.Z. Co-Op. butter was merely confusion between wholesale and rdtail prices. It seems incredible that Mr Motion would be so foolish as to make statements so easily c;isproved. While Mr Moition does not actually name us in his charge against distributors selling butter in wrappers marked “not less than 15% ozs” in view of our name appearing so prominently in his charges, we would stfite that all ou,r| wrappers contain the words “11b net.”

Mr Motion is reported as saying “Aickin wanted to withdraw after he !j had colliaredl 600 to 700 boxes per ' week of the company’s business.” We neve.ii rit any time desired to withdraw from the Association which had proved of tremendous value to all sections of the producers. In a final effort to preserve the Association from disruption by Mr Motion we offered at meetings pf both the Dominion Butter Committee and of the Distributors’ Association, held on March 22nd, to entirely sacrifice our trade in second brand butters, on condition that Mr Motion withdrew his cut prices. Mr Moition refused. When we asked for a vote of the members of the Association as t® whether we had, or had not strictly observed all the rules of the AssociaMotion, as chairman, refuses jMT put it to the meeting, left the and broke up the meeting a'nd incidentally the Association. Messrs Robinson and Wallace’s cer-

tificate is also a complete answer to -f the accusations against us appearing over Mr Goodfellows’ signature in the “Daiiryfarmer"’ of April 2C4th. Mr Goodfellow, who was absent from New Zealand when the dispute arose, could have no first-hand knowledge, and has acted ’’ashly in fathering a serious charge of this nature without testing the rea'libility of his inform- ■ er.

With to the quality of our second brands, we have asked the Opotiki Dairy Association for a definite pronouncement, aand we have the following statement in a letter from the secretary of the Oootiki Dairy Associaion. “We have said, and quite truly that we have only pu,t up butter in “Lilac” and “Primula” which we considered not up to our standard quality. Under normal conditions we are jealous of ithe good quality of “Opotiki,” but just now we desire to let ethers know ,tbat we have the misfortune to get a second grade parcel occasionally.”—We are, etc.

C. AICKIN & SONS