COOL STORE LICENSE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 301, 15 August 1932, Page 3

COOL STORE LICENSE

EMPHATIC PROTEST FARMERS OF MORRINSVILLE OBJECT TO NEW COMPANY. LOOKED ON AS DUMMY. A motion emphatically protesting against the granting of a license to the Auckland Cold Storage Company was earried with a few dissentients at the annual meeting of the Morrinsville Dairy Company. Before the meeting was a circular from the Minister of Agriculture, who asked for an expression of opinion from shareholders of dairy companies, not directors only, as to the wisdom or otherwise of granting a cool store license to the recently registered company whieh proposed to store butter at the Westfield freezing works. The chairman, Mr. J. E. Leeson, explained that when the scheme was first mentioned the Morrinsville company had suggested that it would, if the new storage company was licensed, supply 700 tons of butter. The reduced storage ch'arges quoted by the new company would mean a saving of £175 a year to the Morrinsville company. The directors considered that the Auckland Farmers' Freezing Company, which had a monopoly of the butter storage business, had not reduced its charges as much as it should have done. The new company" was only a "dummy" company. The parent company which owned the freezing works was a British company with 30,000 British shareholders. "We think it would be better if the principals and not the dummy company applied for the license,'' he added. Mr. F. W. Seifert thought that even if shareholders voted in favour of the new company it was doubtful if the Government would grant a license. A motion protesting against the license being granted was then moved. Mr. Topham declar^d that the granting of this license would be against the interests of true co-operation. It had been said that the Farmers' Freezing Company had a monopoly. Well, why should it not? It was a farmers' company, for the dairy companies had £70,000 invested in the Freezing Company and had three out of 11 directors. To grant a license would he scandalous, he considered. He urged the meeting to turn down the proposal to license the new company. Mr. J. W. Clark said the freezing industry was a key industry and all branches of it should he in the hands of the farmers. Mr. G. H. Pirritt: From what we have heard, I think we should support the application. I want to know if all the. shares in the Farmers' Freezing Company are in the hands of farmers. While we have £70,000 in the Farmers' Freezing Company, there is no reason why we should not take up shares in the new company. He declared that the dairy companies had received no consideration from the Farmers' Freezing Company until the new company was talked about. If there was competition between the freezing companies the dairy companies would get better service. There was no sentiment in business, and the dairy companies should go where they got the best deal. Mr. C. A. Ferguson thought the farmers' representative on the Farmers' Freezing Company had not done all possible to have charges reduced. It had been suggested to him that butter producers were being penalised for the benefit of meat producers. Mr. W. R. Lowry suppoi'ted the resolution. He thought farmers should look on the new company with suspicion. He considered the Farmers' Freezing Company had been of great service to farmers for it enabled them to export meat on consignment without selling to the export buyers. The new company would crush: the Farmers' Freezing Company out of existence and then charge what it liked. ■In reply to other spealcers, Mr. Topham said the Farmers' Freezing Company had reduced it charges in August, 1931, while the new company was not registered until February. It was not correct to say that butter was paying more in storage charges than meat. There was no more honest company in New Zealand than the Farmers' Freezing Company. The motion was then put and earried.