CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 September 1922, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

PROPOSED DAIRY POOL. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Your leader in your issue of 16th inst. begins "by an almost unanimous vote,” etc. Will you kindly explain this phrase in face of the following facts'?: There are approximately 500 dairy factories in New Zealand : Qf these 137 voted for the pool scheme, 20 voted definitely against. The balance ,of 340 odd were not represented or did not vote. Seeing the only information supplied to directors prior to the conference was the bare statement that adequate control on the lines of the meat control board was desirable, can you blame the many directors ■ present who were not empowered to commit their companies? How many factory directors let the dairy farmers have any knowledge of the. constitution of the meat control board? Probably not 30 per cent. You say truly "a good deal has to be taken on trust,” etc., and gd on to comment on the lack of confidence and trust in some of the leaders "due to the ftt|lhre of previous ill-conceived ' and ill-considered schemes.” Surely dairy farmers are not to be denied the common sense method of judging men on their past records. In your columns strong comment has often appeared on the hasty, ill-considered manner in which important measures have been rushed through the House in the closing days of a session, so that one can hardly realise the Daily News advocating the passing of a hurriedly prepared Act affecting the well-being of the dairy industry, in the hurry and rush of the last days of a dying Parliament. No one denies the fluctuations, etc., of the dairy produce market, which prevailed last season, but, on the other hand, such conditions were common to markets of all classes, so common Indeed, that it would be interesting reading if you can furnish particulars of anything that has been in a steady reliable condition this last year or two. Your assumption that the meat pool is a success does not agree with information gleaned in Wellington. There is apparently a. great deal to be achieved before the meat pool can claim to be a success. - Its promoters are finding their job anything save easy, and, in the words of one of its most enthusiastic supporters. "It is wise to go no farther than you can see.” Finally, In regard to the counting out and .obstruction episode, it is a. matter of minor importance, excepting that it shows up somewhat the conduct of the promoters, and the means they adopt to stifle opposition. The ultimate result of this form of argument will be tenfold more harmful to the pool promoters than ever it has been or will be to—Yours r etc., GEORGE GIBSON. [ln regard to the statement, "almost unanimous vote,” we accepted telegraphed Press reports as correct, but a vote of 137 to 20 Is a particularly emphatic one. We do not feel justified in according our unqualified support to the proposed scheme until further details are forthcoming, but we certainly do think that producers would be ill-advised to accept the old marketing conditions as the best available in face of what has happened since the war without exhausting every possibility of improving tliem. Unless the producers are united in this determination they may fall again, and will deserve to. As for the meat pool, things in every way have shown a decided improvement since its inauguration. Thgt condition may have come about in any case, but the DOint is that there was little risk in setting up the pool because things could not have been worse than they were previously. The system of marketing dairying products needs to be carefully considered. There Is. we admit, scope for considerable improvement at this end, as well as at the other end—in improving quality. In lengthening the producing season. In lowering the charges from the factory to the steamer, and in reducing freights.—Ed.]