THE DAIRY POOL

Franklin Times, Volume 9, Issue 744, 4 July 1922, Page 5

THE DAIRY POOL

REPLY TO the OPPOSITION POINT OF VIEW. t (To the Editor). • —Whilst the promoters of the TsS?ry Pool decided that they would , take no notice ol letters appearing in the Press relating to the proposal, I feel that the article by R. Runnerstrum appealing in your paper of Jpn<e 13th requires some attention, as it is brisking with inaccuracies and tendencies to mislead. ®4y understood that Mr Runners trum is running a Proprietary Factory and his interests and those of the producers are not identical, as evidenced by his ; opposition to the proposed milk and cream Testing Act which has been brought forward with a view to Government officials givingsome supervision to cream and milk testing in the interests of the producers; 1 Those who have been associated with the dairy industry of the Dominion since lits inception | know that in the early years Proprie-Pf-tary Factories were not in the interj ests of 1 producers and the producers I gradually established- co-operative t factories until Proprietary Factories [ practically ceased to exist. The diffi- [ culties of those strenuous years are [ apt to be forgotten, and history f may have to repeat ifcself. Mr RunI nerstrunu says a great deal about, k worWihg in harmony with the Tooley I Street merchants, and seeks to misI lead the producers into believing that I the proposed Dairy Pool was taking I the business out of the hands of I Tooley- Streejt merchants. As a | matter of fact, he we!ll knows that I the produce is intended to go through I the merchants in the same way as I in pasHiyears, but jthat the producers I would-retain cor/trol untKl he pro- | duce is sold* with a right to say I that their owrt produce should not I be needlessly sacrificed.

K By the way Mr Runnerstrum states | merchants “have established perfect businesk- methods” and in the next 1 nn<>i> he made.” Just what does he ! niean ? He also refeus 'toi he of- ! fice of the National Dairy Association ; Lin London, and states that the only [information received is stale, etc. | [This is*absolutely contrary to fact, i At the/beginning of the present sea- | [son the London office of the Nat-, ional Dairy Association Strongly urg-1 led alii dairy companies to make cheese [where possible. This advice was ab- | I solutely sound. At the end of De[cember when the price of butter was [down as low as 118 s advise was sent ['that it would be wise to go carefully [so far as the manufacture of cheese [was concerned, and this advice has [also proved to be correct. [ Mr Runnerstrum seeks to ridicule [the idea of a company with only 1£250,000 capital. He doqs nerff seem Ito be aware that so far as the meat I pool was concerned the Government ■decided' that no capital at all was ■required but only Government guarantees. The pi’oposed Datfry Pool ■is to be established: .wAth capital and fthe Government guarantees, which ■makes it doubly safe. Mr RunnerIstrum does not seem to be aware Ithat the London merchants put up no ■ capital' in New Zealand to handle the Iconsignmenfc business in the past. ■They pnfy put up guarantees at the ■bank, /The Dairy Pool would be ■nnera+ed in exactly the same way. ■He sets out that, any information ■relating to weak holders under the ■present system would surely be ■sent on to factories. We would he fclad if Mr Runnerstrum would give that a tri.'al. A gentleman seeking ■to make that information pubTc just ■recently- f s being threatened with an ■action for 'libel. K f7[ r Runnerstrum put all his ai’guInen'ts before a meeting of prodscers [n his own: district, and we are glad lo say received no support, and when lie later suggested {that he should lie one of the representatives to go ■to Wellington tc work out the details of the proposal hffe suggestion KeceHyedthe same measure of Btapporit . We sincerely hope (that Khe producers will be guided by those are working in the interests of ■the producers. * (Signed) T. C. BRASH, ■ ?. Secretary Provisional Com. ■ ; v- Wellington. RkVeilungtoiv 19th June, 1922.