CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 May 1922, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

TRUSTS AND COMBINES AND THE DAIRY' FARMER. (To the Editor.)' Sir, —We all have, and I think very rightly so, a very strong objection to and distrust of anything savoring of a trust, combine, ring or pool. Generally speaking, anything of the kind means arbitrary, unjust and selfish interference with healthy competition and with the operation of the laws of supply and demand. It means the imposing, by the power of combination and the command of great capital, conditions as to quality, price and supply, on the whole of the community, whether producers or consumers. We have in the meat trusts an example of the viciousness of such combinations. The powers of these trusts have become so great, and have been used with such disastrous results to the growers of meat, and at the same time with such shameful exploitation of the consumer, that various Governments have long been searching for means by which the depredations of these trusts and combines could be prevented. Even the United States Government has taken drastic steps, and our own Government has for long been in possession of a means of evidence and facts showing the steady extension of the operations of these trusts in New Zealand, and have endeavored by various means to prevent their getting a strangle-hold, but so far without success. Knowing what, disastrous results would inevitably follow tlie unrestrained operations of these trusts, the Government has been forced to the desperate and bold course of trying to fight them with their own weapons, viz., the formation of a pool. But it remains to be seen whether success or failure will follow the use of a weapon which in principle is wrong. Besides possible failure there is the grave danger that as great evils as those it is desired to defeat may arise from its use. One evil has already arisen, viz., the citing of it as a precedent. The promoters of the dairy produce pool say a compulsory meat pool has been (formed—Parliament has passed legislation enforcing it—then why not a dairy produce compulsory pool ? If. the compulsory meat pool Is a success, why not so a compulsory pool for dairy produce? The answer is that the cases are absolutely different—they have nothing whatever in common. And also that the meat pool’s organisation is not yet even established and its success is quite problematical. The absolute knowledge of the existence and operations in New Zealand of the meat trusts and the experience of the disastrous results that follow such operations, is the excuse for the use of such drastic means. But as to dairy produce there is absolutely no evidence whatever, of any sort, of the existence of any trust. There are only unsupported and wild statements of unfair dealing on the part of “Tooley Street.” Whilst there is not the slightest evidence of the existence of any trust there is ample evidence against such a supposition, and in support of a healthy rivalry between the many independent firms that compete for the handling of our dairy produce in the United Kingdom. Yet we producers, who have hitherto ceaselessly inveighed against trusts of any kind, and who, time after time, have, through our organisations, profited against anything in the form of an export tax as the greatest danger to producers generally, and who detest the mere suggestion of compulsion of any sort, are now coolly asked by certain gentlemen, claiming to be leaders of the dairying Industry, on their wild unsupported statements, to agree to a gigantic trust, a compulsory one, and an export tax.—l am, etc., E. MAXWELL.

RE DAIRY PRODUCE POOL. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I have watched with Interest the results of the various meetings held in different parts of the North Island for the purpose of discussing the advisability of forming a cheese and butter pool. There is one thing about these .meetings that does not appeal to me as satisfactory, and that, is taking the vote on the voices, instead of taking a show of hands. I attended the meeting in New Plymouth, and I am quite convinced that it was impossible for Mr. Morton or any other man to judge the feeling of that meeting taken on the sound of voices. All the same Mr. Morton declared that meeting unanimously in favor of the pool. The same state of affairs seem to have prevailed at all the other meetings held. What I would like to know now is: Who will be the “scrutineer” when the voting forms are sent in from the different factories? I hope that ?s not left to Mr. Morton. For my own part I am quite convinced that something should be done to ensure the N.Z. dairy farmer getting a fair deal with his produce on the English market. I have spent the most of my life in England, and know for a fact that N.Z. dairy produce is unknown, never being advertised in any way. All the same I have a good idea of the shops where most of our produce Is retailed, and these shops, in my opinion, are the Maypole Dairy Company, the Home and Colonial, and one or two other multiple retailing companies, which pay very large dividends, something lijce 50 per cent. I have often wondered whom the shareholders of these various companies might be; do they consist of the Tooley Street merchants? If so, then lam quite convinced that Tooley Street Is the wrong channel to market our produce through under the control of our N.Z. pool board. By what Mr. Goodfellow has told us, the Tooley Street merchants must have had quite a lot of fun out of hjm during his sojourn there, and on his own admission he failed badly in every attempt he made to reform their business methods. It appears to me that they must have had him on “a little piece of string” when he took a few of the “strong holders” into his confidence to hold the price of butter at 200 s. Why should we not consider marketing our produce through the C.W.S. instead of the Tooley Street capitalists? I am sure our pool board would have a much better chance of getting a fair deal with them than with Tooley Street. The C.W.S. have their branch shops in every village and town throughout Britain, and they do not strive to pay large dividends to their shareholders. The C.W.S. is the only concern that the Tooley Street merchants are afraid of. We had quite good evidence of that when the C.W.S. representatives were out here in 1920, which Tooley Street knew they must squash at the start ,or go under themselves. So what did they do ? They made big offers for the produce of small factories, which led the larger factories to believe that they would be able to pay 3s per lb. butter-fat If they consigned on the open market. The worst part about these inflated prices was that it caused a land boom. People bought land at ridiculous prices on the strength of 3s per lb butter-fat. How are they going to meet their obligations to-day on Is 4d per lb butter-fat? You hear settlers say that Tooley Street merchants lost heavily on their deal. Yes, quite so; but if. served their purpose, and they are in a position to recoup some of their losses this year at the expense of many settlers having to leave their farms, in many cases losing their life’s savings. When the butter and cheese pool delegates meet in Wellington, I hope they will give this matter grave consideration before they finally decide to use Tooley Street as a channel for marketing under the control of the N.Z. Pool Board. —I am, etc., A. J. LILLEY.