TE KUITI DAIRY CO. AND MR BODDIE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 595, 20 August 1913, Page 5

TE KUITI DAIRY CO. AND MR BODDIE.

The Editor.

Sir,—l fully expected Mr Boddie would reply to my letter which appeared in your issue of August 13th, but I expected the reply to be in the shape of a defence of the system which I openly condemned. Mr Boddie carefully avoided this point, and resorts to his uld and favourite system of beating round the bush to try and get behind facts. He charges me with disclosing secret information through the press which I gained while acting scrutineer. I admit I gained some information while so acting. I also gained a considerable amount while sitting in the room, more after I left the room. I knew a little befora I went there, and I am still asking for information. My answer to that charge is Firstly, I did not disclose any information that should bo kept secret from the shareholders; secondly, if there are secrets there is something wrong and should be exposed. Publicity is antiseptic to corruption. Mr Boddie further charges me with inaccuracy in quoting him as controller of 34 votes. lam sure the shareholders will see my statement is pretty near the mark when Mr Boddie admits that he had 24 votes. Mr Somerville admitted to me that he had 16 votes—24 and 16 are 40, or six more than I quoted. 1 don't wish to get up an argument on those lines. lam right up against proxy voting. I call it a most unsatisfactory system, and, if allowed, a few cunningones can always rule the roost. Say, for argument, there are 20 shareholders in Tangitu, with 10 votes each, these shareholders send proxies in favour of one man. That would mean one would have control of 200 votes i from Tangitu at the annua! or any j other meeting. Mr Boddie held proxies from men sitting in the room j unless I was misinformed by those j men who gave them, so he should feel j flattered. Mr Boddie in hi 3 reply ap- j parently wishes to convey the idea to the public that there were 140 shareholders in the room at the annual meeting. I say between 60 and 70 ■ and the majority of those share holders held one vote. A good portion two votes, a small portion four to five, a few 10 to 24 votes. I leave it to you to judge who elected the directors. I repeat the statement I made in reference to Green and Colebrook. I say Green and Colebrook are the principal guarantors, and without them the company would not have been started. I challenge Mr Boddie to prove otherwise. Was Mr Boddie aware that one of the directors went round the room whispering to his friends "Don't vote for Darrow. Don't vote for Lusk. Vote for so-and-so." There are several matters which I might fairiy criticise. For instance, the balance-sheet does not contain the auditor's signature, and further it does not provide anything for depreciation on buildings, plant, etc. This alone is a record unparalleled in the history of dairy companies. I would also like to know how many shareholders who took up five or 10 shares are aware that they are, according to the Articles of Association, liable to the company for a share for every cow they supply from, and that the directors may stop Id per lb from all butter fat supplied by them to go towards paying up those shares. I would like to know if the position was fully explained to the unsophisticated, but these are simail matters which I will pass over wihtout further comment, and in conclusion say that my letter of the 13th was founded on facts which Mr Boddie evidently finds very hard to explain.—l am, etc., A. SCHOLES. Hangatiki. August 13th, 1913.