EXPORT OF BUTTER.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 June 1920, Page 4

EXPORT OF BUTTER.

FURTHER COMMANDEER PROBABLE. BRITAIN PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE. NO MORE CHEESE WANTED. By T«letr*lil).—Press -CopirHht. Received June 17, 8.10 p.m. London, June In the House of Commons, replying to a question asking whether the Co-op-' erative ' Wholesale Sooiety was endeavouring to purchase New Zealand'! output of butter and cheese, Sir W, Mitchell Thomson said he had no information regarding the precise tenor of the Society's negotiations, but the Ministry of Food wag prepared to negotiate for the exportable surplus of butter to March 31, 1921, on lines simi* lar to those of the prerious contracts. He added that the Ministry intends to maintain the existing restrictions on private dealing in imported butter. The Government had decided to take no further contracts for imported cheese, as supplies were expected to be adequate to meet the demand.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. PRODUCE MARKETING SCHEME. SOME IMPORTANT POINTS., Mr. E. Maxwell (Oaonui) wHtes u follows: Comparisons are often most interesting and sometimes an excellent meant of judging values, especially wheh concerning the value of statements. In connection with the produce marketing scheme, I think there are some' comparisons which it would be well for producers to make, and therefore t am going to trouble your readers with the following. So that comparisons can be easily made, I will give each pair a 4 "first" and "second."

First—Statements made at various meetings by the promoters 'of the proposed scheme and also by visiting representatives of the C.W.S. present those meetings. Second —Extracts from booklet published by the C.W.S., dated 1919. Capital. ' First—This Society has Immense financial resources; it has a capital of £80,000,000. Second (Page 9 of Booklet).—The share capital of our C.W.S, was at the end of 1918, £3,105,737; the loan, deposit, etc. capital was £12,521,R84; the reserves amounted to £2,!)85,347. Therefore, their capital was really at the end of 1918, £0,161,284, mad* tm of share capital and reserve. An interesting discrepancy of about £74,000,000 out of £80,000,000. Customers. First.—-We (the C.W.S.) have 25 million customers—our membership is five million, and counting four to each family makes 20 millions, in addition to which we have about five million outside customers.

Second (Page 24 of Booklet).—The geographical area covered by the C.W.S. for trading purposes (which does not Include Scotland) embraces 1202 retail societies, practically all being members of the C.W.S. or owners of thIS C.W.B. The number of the members of the 1202 societies at the end of 1918 .waß' over three millions, the shareholding societies of the C.W.S. having in 1918, 2,R84,584 members. Measured by the number in each family connected with each sji#freholding society we have a co-operative population in England, Wales,, and Iceland of eight to ten million in touch with the C.W.S. in one way or Another.

I drew marked attention at the New Plymouth meeting to the fact that 25 millions—the numbers/of customers claimed for the C.W.S.—was more titan half of the entire population of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, one of the representatives of the C.W.S. present, in answer to a question, endorsed the claim in almost emphatic manner. , . Tlio discrepancy between eight to teft millions "in touch with the C.W.S. ih One way or another," and their claim to 25 .million customers is, to say the least of it, astounding, especially as all concern-, ed no doubt claim to be business men and intimately acquainted with such important features of the matter. In the face of the above two samples, can any credence whatever be placed on any of the—what shall we term them—inducements to producers to associate themselves with the Society? Now as to the report of the Wanttmui meeting. In answer to a question aft to the financing, the reply was: "Producer* would get their advance as in the past—--60 per cent, through their banks." This >■ statement is so remarkable that one : would believe it a mispriht were it not that exactly the same statement was made at at least one other meeting. What can one think of the whole scheme when those fathering It will make such a statement! The facts are that in the past the producers have never, aneakina in terms, got their advances thhotuzh their banks. Those through whom the producer shipped or to whom they sold, made the advance, and the advances were not 50 per cent., but generally more like 90 per cent. No factory would have for a single moment entertained Ration of dealing wlth e who offered 75 per cent., let alone SO per cent, advance. 1 By the way, it is just as well that producers who think of joining-if tfrrte are any so misguided—this wild-eat scheme, know whom they will be gssociatmg themselves with P^°° klet 25).-"Already th. C.W.S. is the greatest and most note*. d f Sß i rftdin S and tunng body in the world." Pam QoWorld."" 6 ~ We ' tIW W ° rkws "<«

„w r !j 8 a T? festive sound !w° £ '■' «s P eci a lly wh«h we know that the whole organisation ia purely Socialistic. Doubtlm i mort co-operation buying concern—®nd we producers may be a benefit to the membe™ of the C.W.S., it will be a low ® By the way, just how many marketing schemes have the Rational Dairy Association? Isn't this the