THE DAIRY POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 May 1922, Page 8

THE DAIRY POOL.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —It would appear that promoters of the dairy produce pool are past masters at the' game of bluff. Anything that is sound may stand on its merits, but the only chance for a wild cat scheme is to bluff and rush it through, leaving no time or chance for the public to see through it. This is how it is done: A few meetings held at central places, attended by many promoters and a troop of backers so as to give it a rousing go, the audience consisting of factory directors, who have come to hear details and report them to the producers, but not to vote. The promoters and their followers take up most of the day—certainly till the audience are impatient to get away—generalising mostly on how the producers are being robbed by the British merchants. This is a much favored catch cry. And then how the pool is right off going to revolutioninse the system and make money for the producers; going to perform wonders; circumvent the effect of the laws of supply and demand; no more fluctuations in the market; no more low prices (which low prices they say are only caused by these arch villains in Tooley Street) ; fix the price at which the produce is to be sold (whether people are ready to pay that price or not) ; and sell and distribute it at the fixed price. Oh, no! They are graciously going to allow the merchants whom they have spent most of their time abusing and comparing to horsedealers, etc., to sell and distribute it 'under direction.

All generalising and no details. But then at the meetings the promoters say they do not ask for approval of the scheme until full particulars and details are supplied to every dairy company. They have no sooner said this than they proceed to take a vote, and on the voices declare the scheme unanimously, or almost unanimously, approved. Much voice from the quarter where the coterie of followers are, but very little response from the directors who have attended to hear those elusive details and who have been told their approval is not asked until full information and details are supplied. Then they proceed to elect, in a somewhat similar manner, delegates to the Wellington meeting. By the way, I see that these delegates are stated to be thoroughly representative of the dairying industry. They are nothing of the sort; they are no more representative of the producers in the dairying industry than are the self-appointed promoters of this wild cat scheme. The promoters assure the audience that the Wellington meeting is for the purpose of preparing these details, which are then to be submitted to every dairy company before anything more is done. What do we find ? Rush and bluff, and reports throughout the Dominion by means of interviews, etc., that the scheme has been unanimously approved. Then comes the Wellington meeting of delegates on the 18th. Again the paring statements that the scheme has received practically the unanimous approval of the producers. And straight off the pool company, so feport says, is formed, provisional directors appointed, and the decision to obtain legislation making it compulsory. These elusive details’ Where are they? They were to be supplied before approval was to be asked. Great bluff, but will it succeed ?

I suggest that in the continuance of the present competitive system and the retaining of our freedom to trade through whom we choose there is not one thousandth part of the danger there would be in placing the whole of our produce for all time irrevocably at the unchecked, uncontrolled, mercy of rash experimenters.— I am, etc., < n E. MAXWELL. May 25, 1922. '