Buttermaking

Horowhenua Chronicle, 20 July 1916, Page 3

Buttermaking

I.KY7.N. CO-OPERATIVK DAIR V CO., LTD. TOO MAX V ABSENT SUA!( KHOLDBRS. The annual general meeting of the Levin Co-operative Dairy Co., Ltd., was to have been held in the Century Hall yesterday, but only twentyeighr, members were present, and as thirty-seven wore needed to make a quorum, the meeting had to lapse.

' A general ' committee meeting was then held.

'In commenting upon the happening Mi Fred Itetter remarked that in two #r three years' time it would be practicality impossible to get a quorum, ond ho advocated that new Articles of Association be drawn up. The existing ones were made when the company was a small one, and thev were quite inapplicable to present conditions. ■Mr Jan. MeTeavey supported the proposal of Mr Rotter, and mentioned that there were ninny suppliers to the company who were not shareholders. Many of the shareholders had wild their fnnns and departed from the district while still hoVling their shares ; consequently the incoming owners bad not. tlie proprietary rights in the dairy company. Ho proposed that the Articles of Association be revised. Mr James Prouse, chairman of directors, agreed that the Articles of Association needed revising. Mr A. Whiley thought that the tint had come when evciT supplier should be compelled'to take up shares (if onlv fire); otherwise the company in a few years' time would have no resident shareholder#. Mr Prolific soicl the company was entitled to buy milk. To do ■* was profitable, and why should the company throw away money? ;Mr Rix (Linton) wanted to know if this wan in prder in a co-operative company, and Mr Prouse said if it was not it could be put in order. 'Mr Rix replied that if people were ollowed to supply as non-shareholders the company would go under. Mr S. A. Broadbelt said that every drop of milk taken from a non-share-holder made profit for the company. Tie would Jike to see every supplier a shareholder, hut that was not practicable at present. The company's - kinesis was sou'ndly run and it could not become a losing concern. Mr T. L. Walker eaid that years ago when he became a supplier he was compelled to take up shares. He would like to aee the rule maintained. Tn an explanation to the '•'share" position, Mr Tom Brown, secertary of the company, nnid it was advisable lot. to issue more shares than could he Helped ; for to do so increased the liability of tbe company. When money was to he spent in extending the business of the company (to a new district, say), shares should be issued. In the ctise of comparatively recent exten. sions this had been done; in fact, the taking-tip of shares had been by the proposed contributors insisted on. But if the company were to insist upon ill', suppliers becoming shareholders the company would *>se customers; and the result of a diminished supply would be an increase in the ratio of working expenses. It was a fact that the shareholders "did" benefit by the taking of milk from non-shareholders. In a further reference to the position regarding shares, Mr Fred Retter said that in the past the share-issue was absolutely necessary, in order to get the bank advances; but that day was gone by. In his opinion, the only way in which to get all people to t«ke up shares in the company would be to liquidate the present company and to reconstruct it in a way that would make the shares a good investment.

Mr Broadbelt said that in old days the non-shareholders ,penalised to some extent by making them my for separating. (Mr Olson : """les, mul shareholders too"—Laughter). 11 >.u's had changed since then ; if any penalising whs attempted now the suppliers would go elsewhere. > Mr Olecn made the point that lionsuppliers could leave the company any day they liked, but suppliers had to stay on and shoulder the liability ot guarantees. Mr F. O. Smith also expressed a rteisire to know if shareholders were now

quite free of the liability. Mr Broadbelt replied that the, directors' Bond to the hank had been automatically reVnsed, and thrre now w practically no liability. Mr Prou.se added that tlie bond gtven by the shareholders to the dilectors was given only as security to tin directors for their bond to the bank and Mr Prouse took it that a* tlu directors' bonds had been satisfied then could be no demand made on tltf shareholders: their guarantee iiflvim been given for this one purpose only Mr T5. M. Herrick seconded Mr Mc Leavey's recommendation to the directors that the Articles of Association b< revised. This was agreed to on the voice.