THE FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2396, 16 August 1892, Page 3

THE FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE.

TO THE EDITOH. Sir, —Will you allow me space to make a few remarks in your paper. I have just a few ideas 1 should like to put before the public. I see by your papers that the Farmers’ Co-operative are extending their business to Geraldine, and also taking our leading auctioneer from us, and I see, sir, you have nothing to say against it. You used to hold forth against the Co-operative, but you have not said a word against it for a long time. My opinion is that you could not do anything bettsr than advise the farmeas to give up the Co-operative. 1 don’t see it ever did them any good. I am quite sure they could buy as cheaply, and, by paying cash, cheaper, at the storekeepers. They go into the Co.-op., and if they do not pay at the end of the month 10 per cent, is added to their acaccount. Say a man bought .£lO worth, that would be £1 added. Now if a storekeeper did that you would call him a rogue, but the storekeepers have to give twelve months’ credit, and sometimes more. At the end of the year the Farmers Co-op. give you a bonus of about 11 per cent.; that is, you pay £1 interest and get back about 15s. If a storekeeper did that you would call him a sharper, or something worse. At the rate the Co-op. is going on we wont have any towns soon. It is a well-known fact that to have a town near at hand puts a great deal more on the value of land. The farmers are ruining the towns, and in that way taking the value off their property. Besides, if there are no towns there will be no population and no price for farm produce. In that way the farmers are injuring themselves. Then look at the rates and taxes which the towns pay. When there are no towns the farmers must pay the taxes for charitable aid, harbor board, county council, and so on, and they will find that their goods in the Farmers’ Co-operative will be dear. And what is to become of the townspeople. The publicans want compensation for licenses and I think that owners of town properties have a better right to compensation. They will be ruined, and the farmers will have to keep them on charitable aid. I think, sir, you ought to advise the farmers that they are making a great mistake. I think they ought to support their own towns better. Supposing Geraldine were twice as large as it is, and it would be if the farmers would buy their goods in it—would not the demand for the goods farmers have to sell be twice as great as it is now ? I consider it is very short-sighted policy for people to not to support their own town, as there is no market so good as the home market. Hoping you will give this a good place in your paper, I am, etc., Citizen.

[ The farmers ought to see for themselves whether they are doing right or not. As regards the request that we should undertake the directions of the farmers’ minds as to the advisability or otherwise of spending their money locally we have done so so frequently, but our reward has been more kicks than half-pence. Storekeepers themselves set a very bad example to farmers and others in this respect. They would go out cf their own town for anything they wanted as soon as any other class. For instance, they know that we have frequently advised farmers to deal with them in preference to the farmers’ Co-operative Association, yet they very often send their printing to be done in Dunedin or Christchurch or somewhere else. Is that encouraging to us to advocate their cause ? Our correspondent need not take this as personal. It is a matter of frequent occurrence and we merely refer to it to accentuate the fact that if local tradesmen desire to retain the trade in their own town, they must set the example and deal with their neighbours as much as they possibly can. We have known storekeepers to go to Dunedin and Christchurch and buy articles which they could obtain from their own customers. We have known a storekeeper in Temuka--he is not here now—,-whft hardly ever bought one penny-worth locally. Now this appears to us just as mistaken a policy as farmers can pursue, and if we are to advise one, the others require to see themselves as others see them as much a«s anybody. Our correspondonj; showed the loss a fanner insula by buying at the cooperative association’s store. Let us show him the loss he makes by not buying from those who s buy from him. Let us suppose for instance he bought in Pipiedin or Christchurch, an ai’tioie for which fig ooujd bqy Inputjy for £1 2s Gd, what would he gain by it I not a great deal. In Dunedin or Christchurch he must pay cash, locally and in most instances it is taken out in goods. Now the profit on goods taken all round is about 25 pel’ cent., so the price of th? locally bought articles, paid for in is therefore reduced by 25, per pent. Take 25 per cent, off £l 2s 6d and you will get 16s Thus the article that post him i‘X pUpwhere would on}y post Ifis lirid locally, and not pnly that, but he frequently makes enemies, and causes customers to leave him altogether. Now mistaken as the farmer’s policy may be, of the. local tradesman who nof patronise his fel|ow4radqs ; people is still mow so, Bp ought to set a good example it is his interest to do so, and when he does not he has not a great deal to complain of. The fact is everybody is running after bargains and never lookihg to results. But tl.m results are making themselvqa obvious, to those who have eyes to sea. As regards qurselves we make it a rule never to spend one solitary penny anywhere except apiongst those who Spend their money with \lfy f.-Hwptlng when we cannot possibly help it, but it is not very encouraging to find these very people rendering their accounts to ns on billheads printed elsewhere. There is no doubt but a prosperous town adds lo the value of property in its vicinity, there is no doubt that it is a great convenience to the and there is d.puht it would pay the ppople in any locality to spend as much of their money locally as they possibly ciin. We have always advocated and wc have practised Wo preached, and if everybody did the same we should all bo better off.—En.j