THE FARMERS' UNION

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 520, 6 April 1920, Page 1

THE FARMERS' UNION

AND TRADING COWPANY. "A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT." Commenting editorially on the commotion in Farmers' Union circles at Te Avvamutu, the Waipa Post observes: — "The moment the name of the farmers' Union was included in the title of a limited liability company a dangerous precedent was established and difficult situations became imminent for both the Union and the cooperative concern. Bjr this misuse of name the farmers' organisation was brought, if not in actual fact, nominally at least, into the sphere of competitive commerce, and the Union necessarily could not escape the many pitfalls which surround business practice and all the anomalies which are inseparable from the process of buying and selling. In these columns frequent protest against this glaring misuse of the name and organisation of the Farmers' Union has been made, and gradifolly famers are coming to the realisation ol the seriousness of the position which has been created for thenar Hei* vis a company with its- shareholding qualification, and in reality jC separate and distinct concern, operating under a title which in general application and interpretation can only be regarded as a part of an organisation consisting of a voluntary membership. In point of law it tnav be difficult to define the points <-t. severance between the two, and very certainly there is no line of demarcation so far as the public may judge. Hence it happens, in the every- day acceptance, that the company must suffer for the shortcominjjjkf the Union whose name it whilst the Union, on the other hand, cannot escape the evils of the company which has appropriated its name and benefited from its organisation and reputation. The whole position is full of difficulties, and there is not the least doubt that the confusion arising from the misuse of the name ' Union" is full of disadvantages for everybody. Yet, while they appreciate how true this is, those who captain the affairs of the Farmers' Union in this prpvince jealously adhere to the follies/of the past ind refuse to dissociate the name. And all the time the Union is falling and tumbling about their heads—very largely because of the advent of trading interests into what should be a body operating for purposes other-than those of pecuniary gain.

"Until a year pr two ago, when none but farmers' unionists were admitted as shareholders in the trading concern, there was at least some little justification for the use of the name. But now, since the shares are scattered broadcast and thousands of preference shares have been admitted, a complete severance has taken place. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the title 'co-operative' is not really a misnomer, but that is entirely beside the point. The thing that does matter is the use of the Union's name in a purely commercial enterprise. The Union is political—r.ot in the usual acceptance of term as concerning Government p(>!i cies, but as affecting the larger social and domestic questions regulating rural industries and life in the provinces. There is no place for competitive commerce in the Union, for it must mitigate against successful and useful organisation. And, recognising that the elimination of the trading influences is essential, and that it is not yet too late to save what is left of the Union from disaster, the Te Avvamutu sub-executive is renewing its representations to the provincial conference, and it may be hoped that the captains of the Union will yield to reason, so that the fatal error of the past may not be continued in the future."