CORRESPONDENCE,

Taranaki Daily News, 22 May 1922, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE,

DAIRY PRODUCE POOL. (To the Editor.) Sir,—The dairy produce pool promoters tell I ub seriously that we mwsu have a pool because the Pool Board will hold up the mari ket and so prevent our produce being sold at low prices. Really, now. How we ought to congratulate ourselves on having men of such exceptional ability among us. They have not got them in the United Kingdom, that’s clear, for see what the London cable , of the 12th Inst, says: "Five of the principal importers of colonial produce, in a letter to the newspapers, state that the promoters of the New Zealand dairy pool had . no intention of establishing rings to hold up the price to consumers. Such an object was obviously unattainable, because the competition of dairy produce from other couni tries answers the regulation of prices by the law of supply and demand.” And clearly there are no such wonderful men in Den- ■ mark either, for see ' the London cable of I the 11th inst.: “The butter market is -flat, owing to a slump in Danish, which' is offering at 165 s per cwt. f.0.b., equal to 172 s landed. New Zealand choicest is quoted at 168 s to 1705." The Danish pool or pricefixing board was clearly not equal to keeping the market up. And by the way, Mr. Goodfellow and others of these men of exceptional capacity told us that we should fallow the example of the Danes, who had a pool 1 or price-fixing committee' which- succeeded, and why not ours? Now this is the position - The pool promoters say a pool is necessary to hold up the market. Five principal British importers say that the pool promoters have no intention of using the pool to hold up the price, and that it is impossible to do it, because the law of supply and demand regulates the price. The pool promoters say the Danes have a combination for the purpose of holding up the market and fixing the price at which they will sell, and that it succeeds. The cable tells us that the Danish butter slumped. Elsewhere there is a statement that there was a sudden fall of ISs per cwt. If the cable is true the pool promoters are assuring the trade at Home they have (the promoters) no intention' of holding up the price, whilst in New Zealand they are assuring the producers that, that is one ,qf tte chief purposes of the pool. Tte promoters tell us the pool is necessary to prevent our produce losing its idenThe cables tell us of a great advertising campaign to popularise our produce which is being carried on throughout the United Kingdom by the British produce merchants. Tt e pool promoters tell us the pool is necessary to protect us against the jsritish merchants, who speculate in our produce, with tte result that we are defrauded of a large portion of the value. The promoters’ colleague, Mr. Ellson, sends us a report showing that the market price of our produce is close up to what it is retailed at. Account sales to hand show that tte consigning factories are getting full market price, and latest cables show that our butter xa only 2s per cwt. below Danish. Mr. Goodfellow, on behalf of the promoters, says be has received cable advice tnat consignment houses in London are in favour of the pool. A London cable of the 11th Inst, says: “A large and representative meeting of the provision trade section of tl*e London Chamber of Commerce discussed New • Zealand’s proposed pool. The opinion generally expressed was that pools were inimical to the interests of the producers." The promoters say the undue fluctuations of the market were due to the machinations of “Tooley Street" witt the object of defrauding us. Mr. Elison, their colleague, says these fluctuations were due to the holding of Government stocks and to heavy supplies coming in from otter countries, resulting in greatly reduced prices, followed by greatly increased consumption and resulting in a rapid rise. London merchants cut it short and say laws of supply and demand rule. I would ask producers to seriously consider whether gentlemen whose statements — to put it mildly—get so tangled are worth trusting with the control of £1,060,000 capital and £lOO,OOO per annum with which to shoot the stars. E. MAXWELL. May 17, 1922. (To the Editor.) Sir,—-While not being able to agree with Mr. Maxwell in tis opposition to the proposed dairy produce pool, I quite agree with him that the promoters of a scheme for improving the conditiens under which our produce is marketed are deserving of sympathy for the producers. Further, I believe they have it. As a reply to the "plausible reasons" advanced in support of a pool by the promoters, Mr. Maxwell draws attention to the campaign recently started by prominent Tooley Street merci* ants to popularise New Zealand butter. Now, sir, as these people have been handling New Zealand butter for many years, why is it necessary at this time to inaugurate a propaganda for tte purpose of bringing it to the notice of the British public if in the past it has been allowed to retain its identity and sold on its merits? With regard to the methods adopted by the Tooley Street propagandists, as per Press cuttings, the following quotations from same will reveal some of the reasons why tbe producers are dissatisfied -with the present state of affairs. Firstly: "It is pointed out that New Zealand butter, described as 'lmperial produce,’ is 5d to 6d per pound cheaper than the Danish or foreign article." "Stress is also laid dr. the quality of New Zealand butter; it is stated to be quite equai to Danish.” "New Zealand, It is stated, is giving an Imperial lead in cheap butter." Finally we have this: "Any pool of this kind will be resented by the British distribution trade, and will result In the sacrifice of tte goodwill of New Zealand produce.” The quesI tion to be answered, sir, is this: If our produce had been properly marketed in the past, would it be necessary to-day to hawk it through the streets of London at a price less than the copt of production and 6d per pound less than foreign butter? The promoters have done their part by supplying an article admitted to be -nu.il to the best. Why have the merchants', ihb men of brains, failed in carrying out tl.< part of the business? Yes, Mr. Maxwe 1 ' ; has been noted this advertising campaign s being carried on by brominent Tooley Street unerchants, and I am inclined to think an apology is due to that proverbial horse dealer. "FACTORY DIRECTOR." May 16, 1922. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr. E. Maxwell refers to efforts which have been made to prevent the depredations of trusts and combines. He says:— "Even the Uhited States Government has taken drastic steps, and the New Zealand 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." In a reputable United States journal, "The Pattflnder," of March 4, there is the following paragraph: " Capper-Yalstead Bill legalising co-operative associations of fawners and producers for marketing purpose* and exempting them from the operation of the anti-trusts Acts tea become a law." It appears from this that both Governments are working on similar lines. Tfee United States have undoubtedly bad much experience of tfusts, and their considered action is at least entitled to respect.—l am, etc., J. B. RICHARDS, Stratford, May 15, 1922,