CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 May 1922, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

DAIRY PRODUCE POOL. (To the Editor.) Sir,—-Many, I am sure,- will feel that the promoters of the above scheme are in need of considerable sympathy, for they certainly have been most extraordinarily unfortunate. Failure seems to have dogged their footsteps in a most persistent manner. It is’ surprising how many concerns with which many of them have been associated have either failed to eventuate or have fallen far, very far, short of promise. And now in this latest scheme, the proposed compulsory pool of dairy produce, their bad luck is extraordinary. It would seem that, lacking any real substantial grounds to go on, plausible “reasons” were forthcoming, but, in the selection every one was an unlucky draw. Some have already been dealt with —that is their unfairness and absurdity exposed. Here is another—a good sample. It was stated that one important reason for the formation of the pool was that our produce lost its identity, that none of it was sold as New Zealand produce, that the pool was necessary to alter this and properly advertise our produce. I would ask producers to judge the value or fairness of this “reason” by comparing it with the following:— * “DOMINION BUTTER.” “POPULARITY IN BRITAIN.” ■‘CAMPAIGN BY MERCHANTS.” “The campaign to popularise New Zealand butter at Home, inaugurated by .prominent Tooley Street butter merchants early this year, is being carried on through the Press of Great Britain. Exchanges to hand show that the campaign is chiefly directed to emphasising the cheapness of the Dominion product compared with foreign butter, but stress is also laid on the high quality of New Zealand butter, which, it is stated, Is quite equal to Danish. . . . Publicity is also being given to a statement by the High Commissioner in London, Sir James Allen, detailing the methods of production and the system of Government grading of dairy produce by experts. . .” Note that this advertising campaign is being carried on by prominent Tooley Street merchants, the men who are accused by the pool promoters of systematically defrauding us and were, by one promoter, compared to “horsedealers.”—l am, etc., , E. MAXWELL May 10, 1022.