DAIRY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 389, 5 July 1918, Page 4

DAIRY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION.

(.To the Editor, Pukekohe and Waiuku "Times.")

Sir,—l have noticed two letters in your columns signed one by "Dairy Farmer," and the other by "BitftecI'at." both in opposition to amalgamation of butter-fat interests in this province, and while every dairy farmer is justified in accepting his own opinion, I am inclined to think neither -entleman has given this question tiw consideration it deserves, and what they have given has been on party lines. Both are inclined to favour tlio position as it is. and both try to throw some doubt on the concern they do not favour, I am not concerned to attack the Waikato Cooperative Dairy Company, nor defend the New Zealand Dairy Association, lint would like to say that a great deal mure than the interests of these two companies is involved. To put it my way-the interests of the suppliers as a whole are crreater than the interests of any company. It should lie clear fr, anyone that to have two or more men to do one man's work U loss with a very big L, and the loser is the supplier. Any day one can see in Auckland streets two or more milk carts doing the work of one, also two or more butchers', bakers', or stores,' carts where one would suffice, meaning an increase of costs to the detriment of both buyer and seller. " Rutterfat " states, inter alia, '"that farmers are fcy nature a dissatisfied body, and they always will be so," and later on: " Brother farmers, take advice from me. Be content with your present lot "—i.e.. continue employing two or more men to do one man's work. To my mind, dein'j' content with one's present lot is a wrong proposition, though a. somewhat similar one is made in the Church of England Prayer Book, and is used by thousands of worshippers, but, strange to say, never adopted in practice,

If the inner history of previous attempt* at amalgamation was written, it would probably show that failure was duo to the fact that sufficiently lucrative posts could not bo found for the hearts and staffs of the various companies, If this view is correct, then it is plain that two or more are doing flu- work of one, and in consequence the supplier loses. Further, if this view is correct, it surely behoves the suppliers to take the matter up, formulate their "articles of association," elect their own hoard of directors and their own manager, aid. kariii? <!«■• so. agree to majority ruling. "Union is strength." Let the position of Russia to-day prove this—s-pit up into a number of contending factions, each having its good points (lil#e the dairy companies), hut wanting amalgamation. Winn a miserable spectacle! Brother farmer*, if I may offer you advice, I would say. consider this question in all its various aspects, debate it with your fellows, not from the Paeey or the Goodfellow viewpoint, but from your viewpoint, and then act; hut hear in mind that there can be. no union if any individual tries to force his viewpoint on tho others. Majority rule, though by no means perfect, is the neatest perfection that civilisation has yet evolved. —Yours, etc.,

G. P. EWIXG Whangarata, Ist July, 1013.