FARMERS’ FREEZING COMPANY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 458, 20 May 1909, Page 3

FARMERS’ FREEZING COMPANY.

HOW THE CANVAS IS PROGRESSING. Considering the very great importance to this district of the probable establishment of the Farmers’ Co-operative Freezing Company —a movement now in energetic progress—some observations made to and facts gleaned by a Wairarapa Age reporter may be of interest. Few are aware that already practically the whole amount agreed upon by the provisional directors as the minimum subscnbtion upon which they may proceed to allotment —the large amount of ,£IO,OO0 —has already been guaranteed. The directors have met with enthusiasm in every part of the extensive territory in which they are operating, and it is confidently anticipated that the company will be floated well within the statutory period of 90 days. “ I’ll never take a share in the company,” said one, “for the reason that the other companies have been made far too strong. If the present companies offer an advance in price of, say, sixpence per sheep, there would simply be a rush on the part of farmers to sell to these companies, and where would the co-operative concern be then ?”

“But,” replied another, “there is, as you know, a suggestion that shareholders should be bound to support the company in preference to outside concerns. Mr Corrigan, the late chairman of directors of the Nelson Co-operative Freezing Company, stated that he was against recommending the company to insist on binding the shareholders to support the company, as that might be a source of trouble in enrolling members. He probably did not sufficiently compare the difference between forming a company at Nelson, where there was practically no opposition, and forming a company in this and the Manawatu districts, where there is keen oppostion, and where farmers who had any real business instincts at all would see the weakness of a company which had not its members bound by contract. I believe that instead of being detrimental to the enrolling of shareholders the agreement under bond would have materially assisted the shareholders.” “To talk about binding shareholders in the manner suggested must appeal to any farmer who views the question carefully as quite illogical. The whole proposal is “flattened out” in one query. What is there to prevent a farmer selling his “fats” as “stores ?” I might mention, however, that a sub-committee ot the provisional directors has now before it a scheme which I believe it intends to recommend the adoption of, and one which should just about settle the matter of preference to the company. This scheme, in short, is tq bar all shareholders who do not give the company first refusal of their stock from participating in either bonuses or dividends. This should be drastic enough to meet the case, surely.” “Is there anything fresh to report regarding the matter of venue ?” asked the pressman. At the mention of this probable source of doubt and difference, the company man smiled and shook his head. “There are a lot of matters of a cognate nature which must be left in abeyance meanwhile,” he replied.