Five It’s Dead Now – Let it Rest 1905

CHAPTER FIVE

It’s Dead Now – Let it Rest

Christmas 1905 was on everyone’s minds and no doubt the slogan ‘goodwill towards men’ and other seasonal charitable thoughts were somewhat dashed by an untimely announcement in the local press. What appeared at the time exorbitant commission rates charged on the sale of stock by proprietary auctioneers had been the catalyst that had driven the desire of farmers in the 1880s to own and operate their own stock and station company and this recent notice by auctioneers to increase their charges to four per cent was possibly the straw that broke the camel’s back. One of the late Arthur Fantham’s employees, James Randall Corrigan, ‘a solidly built, robust individual, known for his repartee, forthright debating style and personal generosity’, and incidentally a fellow Cantabrian, arrived in Hawera with his bride of four years, Annie (née Troup) in 1893. His father was Samuel Corrigan, a British Army pensioner and carpenter, James was born at Woodend, North Canterbury on 10 July 1865. The Corrigan’s had immigrated in 1863 to join relatives in North Canterbury and around 1878 moved to Tinwald. James left school at ten years of age. He was employed mainly in farm work, including ‘a stint’ on Longbeach Station, where he acquired a good knowledge of stock. At the time of his marriage on 12 June 1889, he had a small butchery in Tinwald. His Scottish bride, Annie Troup, had come to New Zealand to join a married sister and worked as a governess. The newly-weds farmed at Lake Flat, near Lake Ellesmere, but drought, flooding and salinity brought failure and so in 1893 the move was made to Hawera in the North Island. Assisted by an ‘extraordinary ability at mental arithmetic’, James Corrigan studied the stock and station trade from his employer and mentor Arthur Fantham, who probably helped him buy his homestead block known as ‘The Oaks’ at Hawera, which is still owned by the Corrigan family. Following Fantham’s death he began stock dealing on his own account. He benefited from the rapid development of pastoral farming in South Taranaki with the advent of refrigeration and rising export prices. During his years in the industry he made numerous James R. Corrigan, prime mover ‘big deals’, once shipping 4,000 sheep from Picton to Wanganui and on another of the proposed Egmont Farmers’ Co-operative Association Ltd, 1906, and director of The Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society occasion driving 4,000 cattle in mobs of 360 to 400, from Hawera to Hawke’s Bay. However, he also traded, almost daily, in small parcels of stock, and it is said that in six months during 1905 he turned over 11,231 cattle at a profit of £552. His of New Zealand Ltd 1914–15. close association with the local stock industry provided him with insight into COURTESY OF ROSS AND CLAIRE CORRIGAN what was becoming a matter of particular concern to him and a number of his

colleagues, that he decided to take matters into his own hands.

Corrigan’s close association with Fantham and the Egmont Farmers’ Union had provided him with a sound and appreciative knowledge of the advantage of co-operative principles and in the delivery of fair and equitable prices in the transaction of business relating to the stock and station industry. Farmers were now without the Egmont Farmers’ Union as a sympathetic ‘watch dog’, and proprietary companies were beginning to reap the benefit of rapid development in pastoral farming in South Taranaki. This most recent attempt at what could be termed in today’s language as ‘price fixing’ by a number of local stock dealers sent shockwaves throughout the farming community. James Corrigan was without doubt one of the prime movers in the resulting letter. He wrote to the editor of the Egmont Star on 30 December 1905:

AUCTIONEER CHARGES

(To the Editor) Sir, In your issue of 23rd I notice the auctioneers throughout the district have an advertisement stating that after January 1 their commission for selling stock will raise to 4 per cent. I think it is time the farmers of the district formed a Farmers’ Co-operative Association similar to the Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association, or else at no very distant date we will be like what the Jews are in Russia at the present time. To begin with they state that the paddock commission will be the same as before, namely 2½ per cent. Now, I maintain if 2½ per cent is fair for a paddock commission 2 per cent is ample for a yard commission. To earn a paddock commission the auctioneer very often has to hire a horse and gig and drive 10 or 12 miles to show the stock, etc. to the would be purchaser, very often without doing any business. Yet he is satisfied with 2½ per cent, but if the farmers get up at 4 o’clock in the morning, and drives his stock 10 or 12 miles to the sale yard and saves the auctioneer the expense of the trap, agent etc., he has to pay four per cent. The farmers of the district have the remedy in their own hands. They have the ball at their feet if they only choose to kick it. If they will only co-operate together they will be able to dictate to the auctioneers what to charge instead of the auctioneers dictating to them. The farmers can get on very well without the auctioneers by co-operating and running their own business. But I fail to see how the auctioneers are going to do if they lose the support of the farmers, as every business in the district depends on the farming community. My advice to the farmers of the district is to co-operate together and have a voice in matters relating to their own welfare as we have been dictated to long enough by trade unions, labour unions, etc. and lastly, auctioneer unions. Thanking you for inserting this – I am, etc. J. R. Corrigan James Corrigan had decisively dispatched the ball back into the auctioneers’ half and the game was about to begin in earnest. There was no rest for James during the Christmas period. He was determined to address what he considered to be unfair and unwarranted fees being imposed on farmers in relation to the sale of stock. A meeting of farmers was planned in the Opera House, Hawera on Saturday 6 January 1906. On New Year’s Day of 1906 an entry in his diary read: ‘Sent 42 letters to Farmers to attend co-operative meeting.’ On Wednesday 3 January 1906 he wrote: Interviewed Messrs Gibson, Bach and Spence re supplying Members Farmers’ Co-operative with goods from their establishments at lowest current rates and allowing them 5% rebate at the end of the year. Bach the Saddler and Spence, Draper agreed verbally, Gibson had to answer by letter. Afternoon went to Manaia and Otakeho agreed with Paterson Blacksmith, Armitage Draper, Gilmour Grocer and Ironmonger Manaia to give farmers belonging to the Association 5% rebate at end of year on all goods purchased. Storekeeper at Otakeho agreed to do the same.

On Thursday 4 January he wrote: Went to Hawera and did some business relating to Farmers’ Co-operative Association. Afternoon took 4 cattle from Fantham’s to Taylor’s dairy and 37 head of heifers etc to Ikis place also 2 calves sucking their mothers. Went round to Puketea and called on Mr Tarrant relative to Farmers Co-operative…

With other supporters Corrigan continued to solicit rebates and concessions from local merchants in Hawera, Eltham, Stratford and elsewhere and drum up support amongst the farming community for the proposed new Farmers Co-operative Association. On 6 January 1906 between 60 and 70 landowners and farmers arrived at the Opera House in response to advertisements and numerous letters sent out to selected people. The meeting was convened for, ‘those interested in forming a Farmers’ Co-operative Association to protect the interests of farmers and for the general welfare of the district’. Well known James (Baldy) Davidson was in the chair and Mr J. Guerin acted as secretary pro tem. Corrigan apologised for the absence of Mr Lambie of Pihama who sent a telegram wishing the movement success, and apologies were received from Messrs R. Hicks and Henson.

Chairman Davidson in his opening address said he thought it time that the farmers did something to protect themselves. He alluded to the fact that the auctioneers were ‘doing very well’ and indicated that had they not increased the commissions by one per cent ‘everything would have gone on as usual’. He then introduced James Corrigan as ‘the prime mover’ to address the meeting. James spoke from the heart. He had given considerable thought to the concept and had worked tirelessly to enlist as many prominent farmers and local identities as possible to strengthen the proposal and get the co-operative off to a good start. He spoke about discussing with his friend Fred Livingston the possibilities of an organisation such as a co-operative and the effect it would have on the farming community of South Taranaki and how the South Island Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association had been so successful. He had enlisted the support of James Davidson, an old settler, to call a meeting. Within the boundaries of Otakeho to Auroa, and from there to Stratford and then across to Mangamingi and Kakaramea farmers were paying ‘in wages to auctioneers’ agents and auctioneers £6,000 yearly, and the increase of one per cent, in commissions would make a difference of approximately £7,000 a year to the farmers’.

Davidson asked what reduction had been made when the Egmont Farmers’ Union commenced its operation. Corrigan replied that he was not in the district at the time and said, the Egmont Farmers’ Union had been started on the wrong business lines. It did not finance farmers at all. If it had been run on good lines it would have been a success, as the district was of the best. First of all they would be required to appoint a Board of Directors, who would employ a manager for the business. Rotten as the Egmont Farmers’ Union was it kept the prices down while it lasted, but immediately it was knocked out up went the commission. The auctioneers had increased their commissions to 4 per cent, and in a short time might want 5 per cent. The Canterbury Farmers’ Association charged 2½ per cent commission on stock sales, and refunded 25 per cent of the commission earned during the year. James told the meeting he would have preferred that local auctioneers had made the charge eight per cent and that would have brought farmers to their feet smartly. He then read a paper written by Mr J. T. Quin, relating to a formula he had prepared to raise capital for the venture. His idea was to start a company with 5,000 shares at £10 per share, shares to be called up as follows: £2 per share on application and £3 on allotment. He suggested men be appointed to canvass house to house to solicit the purchase of shares and he proposed that another meeting be held in two weeks to gauge the level of support being received from the farming community. He said that ‘if £1,000 of shares had been taken up, the company should be floated’. He summarised thus: The objects of the company should be to look after the farmers’ interests in general, sell stock of all descriptions on 2½ per cent commission and finance bona fide members of the association if deemed advisable by the controlling directors. Annually after all expenses had been paid and allowances had been made for depreciation and ‘sinking fund’ any profits should be divided pro rata among members who had transacted business with the Association.

It was suggested that the Association would be controlled by a board of nine paid directors, ‘who should employ a competent manager’ who would be solely under their control. Quin thought that

if the members loyally supported the Association there was no doubt that 25 per cent of the money earned in commissions would be refunded at the end of the year.

If there was a division between the gentlemen who had promulgated this particular co-operative concept it was now to be aired. The intention of sponsors of this venture was to establish a cooperative stock-dealing enterprise without getting into the sale of merchandise and, reading from Quin’s notes, James was about to touch on this rather delicate subject: ‘Instead of starting stores, members of the Association would be able to get a rebate of five per cent on purchases from storekeepers and other business men in the district’. He pointed out that ‘the farmers should not be gulled by the other auctioneers selling at the same rate, as by supporting the Association they would get a rebate of all the profits’. James Corrigan concluded Mr Quin’s paper by reading the following: The present auctioneers say farmers will never support the association, as they will fall out among themselves. Now show them by combination and the sinking of petty jealousies what you can do. Chairman Davidson moved that a provisional directorate of 12 be appointed ‘to work up the matter’. The motion was seconded by Mr Corrigan and it was carried without dissent. Corrigan said that he had interviewed most of the major storekeepers in the district and all were willing to give members of the proposed Association five per cent rebate on purchases, ‘so he did not think it would be necessary for the association to start a store at the present time’. Mr Quin had spoken to Mr Wilkinson (Eltham) and compared his prices with the Canterbury Association’s store and the prices were about the same. He then presented letters from John Gilmour (Manaia), T. W. Armitage, W. Spence (Hawera) and Cameron and Son (Hawera), all of whom expressed willingness to allow members of the Association five per cent discount. Davidson commented that, ‘the terms seemed fair’, and he had no doubt that other storekeepers along the coast would make the same concession.

Mr McKeown asked from the floor if the auctioneers were represented at the meeting. Someone remarked, ‘that is the auctioneers’ business’. ‘Have they been asked to attend?’, asked Mr McKeown. Corrigan replied that auctioneers were at liberty to attend had they wished to do so. McKeown said the members did not grasp the situation fairly. He did not want to ‘wear two faces’ and thought both sides should be represented. He continued, saying, ‘before the directors were appointed the auctioneers should be invited to attend, so that they would not be able to say afterwards that they were not given a chance’. Chairman Davidson said: I will not ask them to attend and that is straight. ... ten to twelve years ago the farmers formed a union, and immediately that became defunct the auctioneers increased the commission rate and never said’ ‘by your leave’. Why should we consider them now? Spontaneous applause erupted when the chairman said that he thought Mr McKeown was a little premature in asking the meeting to invite assistance from the auctioneers. McKeown claimed that he was not rightly understood; his sympathies were with the meeting, and they could have his subscription then and there if they wanted it. What he thought, however, was that the auctioneers should be represented and made acquainted with the views of the farmers, and if they still persisted in the proposed increase then the hands of the association would be strengthened. Corrigan joined the debate, saying that ‘the farmers could do without the auctioneers, but the auctioneers could not do without the farmers’.

The meeting continued. Provisional directors were elected: J. T. Quin (Fraser Road), J. F. Pease (Hawera), R. Lambie (Pihama), J. Ure Murray (Ngaire), A. Alexander (Normanby), A. Wills and F. Livingston (Tokaora), J. Davidson (Taiporohenui), G. V. Pearce (Kakaramea), C. Hawken (Waihi), A. McKeown (Pihama), J. H. Sellers (Inaha), H. Miller (Makino), B. Lysaght (Mokoia), J. R. Corrigan (Hawera), Gamlin (Manaia). Mr Dive suggested anyone willing to join should send in their names straight away, and if the provisional directors got sufficient support in the way of canvassing,

necessary documents should be prepared before the next meeting. Mr Dive moved, ‘that the shares be £10 each and this was seconded by Corrigan who said he ‘did not think it would be necessary to call up more than £5 but it would be prudent to have the other £5 there’. Mr Wilkie then entered the arena by stating that ‘it seemed they were arranging to buy their coat before they knew what sort of coat they were going to have’, and thought the 1,000 shares at £10 each would be quite inadequate. Corrigan then said, the idea was to have 5,000 shares at £10. This was followed by Mr Wilkie saying that they were sending men out canvassing without first ‘coming to something definite’. Members of the provisional directorate were asked to remain in the hall after the meeting.

Discussion continued at the meeting regarding the now defunct Egmont Farmers’ Union, Mr J. Baker saying that, ‘it had always been a mistaken idea that the late Union was a company of farmers. It was only a company running saleyards’. The chairman followed up this remark by saying: ‘It’s dead now; let it rest’. Some present had not discounted the possibility of the new co-operative including merchandise as part of the business although the prime aspect would be to protect farmers in connection with the commission payable on stock sales. A vote of thanks on a motion of Mr Canning was carried unanimously and votes of thanks were passed on to Mr Davidson for convening the meeting and Mr Guerin for acting as secretary. The meeting rose.

PROPOSED PROSPECTUS of the EGMONT FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LIMITED CAPITAL:- £50,000, in £5000 Shares of £10 each. Payable as follows:£2 Share on Application, £3 Share on Allotment, and the balance by Calls as the Directors may think fit, but not exceeding £1 per Share every three months. The Provisional Directors are:

MR J. DAVIDSON, Farmer, Hawera, J.P. MR MURRAY, Farmer, Eltham MR JAS. THOMPSON, Farmer, Ngaire MR GAMLIN, Farmer, Manaia MR. J. T. QUIN, Farmer, Eltham MR F. LIVINGSTON, Farmer. Waimate Plains MR A. T. WILLS, Farmer, Hawera MR SELLERS, Farmer, Waimate Plains MR B. C. LYSAGHT, Farmer, Mokoia MR G. V. PEARCE, Farmer, Kakaramea MR C. HAWKEN, Farmer, Hawera MR J. R. CORRIGAN, Farmer, Hawera MR ALEX. ALEXANDER, Farmer, Waihi MR McKEOWN, Farmer Pihama MR R. LAMBIE, Farmer, Pihama MR H. MILLER, Farmer, Makino

The BANKERS (pro tem) is the BANK OF AUSTRALASIA, Hawera The SOLICITOR (pro tem) is Mr H. CAPLEN, Hawera The SECRETARY (pro tem) is MR J. A. TURTON, Hawera The objects of the proposed Company are fully set out in the draft Memoranda of Association and Articles of Association lodged with Mr J. A. Turton, Secretary (pro tem), at his office, Borough Chambers, High Street, Hawera, and will be found to include, in more or less legal phraseology, the following details: The objects of the Association are for the purpose of assisting the farmers generally. 1.For selling all livestock on commission of cattle, horses, sheep and pigs, and for marketing all other farm produce on the best possible markets at the lowest rates. [continued 2 to 21]… PROSPECTUS AND FORMS OF THE APPLICATION may be obtained from the Company’s Secretary or Bankers and all applications should be filled in and signed by the applicant and forwarded to the Secretary. Dated the … Day of …, 1906

The objects of the company were enumerated one by one, setting out a wide range of stock and station activities, merchandising, agency arrangements and other financial facilities the new company intended to provide and undertake. Included were such possibilities as assisting dairy companies in the consignment of butter and cheese, wool, mutton and beef on the English and other world markets, together with making ‘liberal cash advances on same’, and almost every other accommodation a farmer might need in the operation of his farm.

All in all it had been a successful meeting, although there was a hint that numbers attending had not quite met expectations; the Opera House had the capacity to seat hundreds of people. Perhaps not enough time had been allowed to organise such an important event, or possibly the time of the year was against them. However, those who committed themselves to this cause continued to solicit members and interest throughout the district in the weeks ahead. The subject, however, became the source of argument and repartee in press columns during following weeks. Some letters to the editor of local newspapers illustrate the reasoning and the intensity of the debate and among opposing parties.

James Corrigan and his supporters had shown their hand and local proprietary stock and station auctioneers entered the fray, no doubt with some fear and trepidation because of the risk of losing considerable business if the proposed co-operative gained enough support. One of their number, a most experienced member of the industry Arthur W. Gillies, the senior partner of Gillies, Fantham and Nalder, who acquired the remnants of the Egmont Farmers’ Union Limited book of business, a former chairman of the North Otago Farmers’ Co-operative Association Limited where he had chaired the board for three years, decided to provide the district with his opinion on the subject. Mr Gillies was born and educated in Dunedin. His father, the late Robert Gillies, owned the firm ‘Gillies and Street’ and was proprietor of the Awamoko Estate near Oamaru and was a one-time Member for Bruce in the House of Representatives. Arthur took up farming as a career and became the owner of a sheep station in North Otago before selling up and arriving in South Taranaki to set up business as a stock and station agent. He now entered the arena with a letter to the Hawera and Normanby Star: THE FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE

To the Editor.

Sir … In connection with the formation of the above there appears to be a good deal of misconception. I know that I am an interested party, but this will not prevent me from stating the truth, and as I was Chairman of Directors of a most successful co-operative association for four years I can speak with some knowledge. The proposal made on Saturday that the association should not embark in general business other than in auctioneering and commission business will not work. No co-operative association has succeeded by doing a purely auctioneering and commission business. We tried it and made excellent arrangements with local business men, but it was no good at all, and we had to launch out into heavy stocks of groceries, ironmongery, drapery, boots, harness, millinery, implements, furniture etc., and it was the enormous profits made on some lines of merchandise that enabled us to pay any bonus at all on commissions. We found that in selling stock farmers will not stick to their association, and in grain (an enormous source of profit in the south) the shareholders will go to the merchant who can give the slightest fraction of a penny more than the co-operative. But it was not so in merchandise, and anyone who reads the balance sheets of the profits compared to the small amount (comparatively) earned on commissions. The result generally has been that while auctioneering firms have been affected more or less, grocers, ironmongers and drapers have been terribly injured and in many cases knocked out.

Some think that the co-operative will reduce commissions. We did not do so in the south. If we could we would have raised them. If we bought corn sacks in India for 4d we were only too glad to sell them to shareholders at 7d and so on in every line. A great co-operative bought and still buys thousands

of bushels of grain from its own shareholders, charging them commission, and the thousands made go to swell the general profit and loss account – not to the individual farmer. The reason for all this is an absolutely sound one. Unless a co-operative is to be snuffed out it must be run to make the greatest profit out of its shareholders. The directors, the manager and the enormous staff (which is absolutely necessary on account of the complicated system of bookkeeping required in connection with the bonus system and other diversified stock kept) have all to be paid before any bonuses start. The statement that private sales should be at a higher rate of commission than auction sales is a ridiculous one. In a private sale an auctioneer selects his buyer; at auction he has to sell to the highest bidder, and he cannot avoid losses. In the south we had to sell at the ruling rates – 2½ per cent private and 2½ per cent auction plus advertising whether the farmers advertised or not and plus yard fees, 1d a head on sheep and 6d on cattle sold or unsold. But we did little at auction. With the exception of Burnside and Addington, where the terms are strictly cash, stock is not sold at auction to the same extent as in the north. We charged 5 per cent on all horse sales, 2s 6d entrance fee and advertising. We charged 5 per cent on all clearing sales. On a clearing sale I had the co-operative charge me 5 per cent plus advertising 42 pounds, plus the cost of conveying the auctioneer to the farm. I will show the account to anyone. A great difficulty in starting a co-operative is getting the share capital. The clever man takes up one share, thus getting any benefit in the way of bonus without risking any capital.

No one will invest in co-operative shares down south purely as an investment. The rate paid on the dividend is in the hands of the majority of shareholders, and there is a constant fight going on, the farmers wanting all the profits in bonuses without paying anything but a nominal dividend. Shares in the best co-operatives, even though bolstered up by premiums, are not easily sold. One word more. A co-operative can undoubtedly be formed here, but even if well managed it cannot be as successful as the southern association, for the conditions are widely different. The corn sacks, grain, binder twine, grass seed and produce of all descriptions raised in lands where one fourth of the farms must be kept under the plough alone make a vast difference. Finance is always with the best co-operatives a great difficulty but the one thing always insisted on is a directorate composed of wealthy men, who must sooner or later go to the bank and give a joint and several guarantee. Although I had left the cooperative and the incoming director had taken my place the bank had retained my name as a guarantor for 12 months. This guarantee is a good thing, it prevents the shareholders electing an impecunious man to the Board, and it makes the Board very careful of its advances and bills and its policy. Directors should be very well paid. I am etc.

A. W. Gillies.

P.S. The obliging livery stable keeper who is helping the co-operative movement will be interested to hear that the co-operative runs the biggest and best livery stable in town for the benefit of the shareholders on the bonus system. A.W.G.

Many supporters and proponents of the co-operative venture were breaking new ground and had little knowledge or experience in matters pertaining to such a large and diverse commercial undertaking. History would prove that trading in livestock and merchandise would not be as easy as first thought and surviving the forever-changing agricultural climate, mechanisation and technology combined with the pressures coming from other conglomerates would require considerable patience and skill in the years ahead. One of Hawera’s early storekeepers immediately jumped to the defence of the new co-operative: EGMONT FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (To the Editor) Sir, Mr Gillies’ letter in Wednesday’s STAR calls for a reply. I only propose to deal with one statement that Mr Gillies makes. He affirms that to be successful the proposed Association ‘must’ keep stores and stocks of general merchandise for the supply of the retail wants of shareholders. Mr Gillies admits that he writes as an interested party. Now I, having sold right out of business in Hawera, must be regarded as a disinterested writer.

I state definitely that the course that Mr Gillies suggests for the proposed Association is the one thing they should steer clear of. Let us look at the facts as regards co-operative stores throughout the flourishing Taranaki district. Facts are stubborn things, and past experience will no doubt guide the policy of the proposed Association. Starting at New Plymouth, the capital town, a very strong Co-op was formed there with a large town and country share-list. Under an energetic manager and during the past twelve years of good times it managed to rub along. It did not while it could make a good profit on consigning butter to London. The competition for butter grew keener and now this Co-op has had to close its doors and go into liquidation. It will be many long days before the guarantors of this concern are free from their obligations. Regarding the Stratford Co-operative Store, it is no secret that at the last two annual meetings the question of discontinuing the business was very warmly debated. Then we come to the late Eltham and Mangatoki Co-op. This is nearer home and everybody knows its history. Run through good times with very capable directors, it was glad to sell out at great sacrifice to private individuals, and here again the directors are by no means ‘out of the wood’ with their obligations. The words of Mr Astbury, one of the directors, printed in the Hawera Star, sum the position up rather aptly. He says: We found that a cooperative manager takes, of course, his full wages out of the business entirely, a proprietor, when the money is tight and competition keen can, and does, leave his wages in the business and hence compete against co-operation. A manager, and I say it with all respect, will never put the thought into the business that the owner will. Then there was the old Hawera Co-op store, ask any of its promoters if they will sign a new guarantee and take up fresh shares. Kaupokonui used to be quoted as a model of co-operative storekeeping, but with the increased competition for the purchase of butterfat methinks these directors would gladly be rid of the responsibility of financing the store. On a large turnover last year I understand that a profit of about £30 was shown on paper. What use is that kind of business to guarantors and shareholders. Ask Mr Davidson (one of the prime movers in the proposed Association) if he would care to again enter into retail business with excessive competition. High rent, rates, Employers Acts, Shop Acts, high wages etc., and I can well imagine the sagacious shake of his head and canny smile as we all know so well. I am quite willing to grant that where an Association buys and exports great quantities of such lines as grain, wool, frozen meat, butter etc, that a profitable business can be carried on, but these lines do not exist in quantities here, and butter exporting is already on a good footing. Then you say where is the difference, how does the average business man pay his way and make progress at all? I will tell you. It is no trade secret. He gets up at 6:30, he has his shop open at 8 o’clock, puts all his energy and time into his business during the day and then after tea he works at his indenting, ordering, letter writing, book-keeping, etc till 10 or 11 o’clock and this he must do five nights a week if he wants to make any headway at all. When he starts in the business he draws the smallest possible, leaving the balance in the business every week. Also all his profits, however small, are constantly being reinvested in stock. Then the greatest difference of all is the difference between his own personal attention to and the supervision of every detail as against a manager and assistants whose interests begin at 8 o’clock and end at 6 o’clock. The large so called co-operative stores at Palmerston North and Masterton are only co-operative in name as the controlling interest and management have in both cases long since passed into the hands of wealthy Wellington merchants. With other points in Mr Gillies’ letter I do not propose to deal, not having knowledge of them. Thanking you for space. – I am etc F. J. Wrigley The swords were drawn, that drew yet a further response from the ‘prime mover’ of the proposed co-operative Mr Corrigan: CORRESPONDENCE. EGMONT FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (To the Editor) Sir, I must ask space to reply to Mr Gillies’ letter of the 15th. I think as for the store keeping and merchandise part Mr Wrigley has answered it fully so far as he goes. I would like to quote Mr Gillies a paragraph out of the Chairman’s annual report of the N.Z.F. Co-operative of Canterbury, to show him that he is all wrong in his idea of profits on merchandise going to pay a bonus on commission

earned. ‘One item alone, the 4 per cent. Bonus on purchases this year, will take between nine and ten thousand pounds, and after this is paid the purchaser will pretty well have had nearly all the profits on merchandise.’

Yet this institution refunds 25 per cent of commissions earned to its shareholders pro rata. As to the joint and several guarantee, this institution does not give a joint and several to its banker, and I can tell Mr Gillies I have made inquiries, and the Egmont Farmers’ Co-op. banker does not require a joint and several either.

Mr Gillies’ letter puts me very much in the mind of a lawyer who has a very poor case, and the only thing he can do to keep up his reputation is to abuse the other side. As to the commission and charges (£1 15s) for selling the £25 horse, I may state in fairness to Mr Gillies that it was not his firm I was alluding to, but I can assure Mr Gillies there was no mistake about it, as the person interested challenged the firm with the charges and they stated the charges were perfectly correct.

Another thing I can tell Mr Gillies: A farmer who was not giving up dairying, but had fifty more cows than he needed to milk for the season, got the same firm to advertise under their ordinary weekly advertisement, ‘On account of Mr. So-and-so, 50 dairy cows’. He brought the cows to their yards and sold them, and when he got his account sales he was charged advertising ten pounds. I can quote hundreds more instances if necessary, so Mr Gillies will see these are not exceptions but the general rule among auctioneers. Mr Gillies states I have had the auctioneers working for me. Well if it were true I would take it as a compliment, as I don’t think any other man in Taranaki could say the same thing. To show Mr Gillies how hard they have worked for me I will have to go into my private business which ought not to have been brought into a public discussion I am taking a period from February 1st 1905 to July 31st 1905. Between these dates I put 11231 head of cattle through my hands. I may state, so as not to mislead that I purchased none further south than Turakina. Of these 9447 were purchased from auctioneers, either in sale yards or privately from their agents. However so as not to mislead I am reckoning as if they were all paddock commission (but I know the majority were purchased by public auction). The auctioneers got £590 commission on my purchases, I paid £840 commission for selling. I also paid droving, railway charges and expenses £821 12s and I made a net profit for the six months of £551 17s. So Mr Gillies can see how hard I have had them working for me, for while I make £551 17s and take all the risk they make £1430 and take no risks. No wonder they have to take their week’s rest at Christmas to recoup their health. Now I do not intend to reply to any more of Mr Gillies correspondence, but I am going to ask him one question. The auctioneers in the district have not carried on stores or merchandise businesses, so we will take the local ones in our town for an example. They live in the best residences in town, they own the best and largest block of buildings in town and I think I can say conjointly they are the largest landowners in the district. Who have they made it out of? I will leave the public to judge who has been making misrepresentations. – I am etc.

J. R. Corrigan Argument and discussion continued in the press and behind closed doors between the parties. It did nothing to enhance the point of view of either side and if anything, helped to pour cold water on an idea that had huge potential. Arthur Gillies had his last word on the matter by advancing what he thought were, ‘several misconceptions as to co-operative associations’ quoting a number of experiences he had learnt from his time with the North Otago Co-operative. He gave an emphatic denial saying that ‘no firm would willingly present a wrong account’ and said, ‘if mistakes had been made they would be adjusted without any trouble if the people would call at his office’. He also reiterated his statement saying that it was the merchandise account and not the commission account that enabled directors to allocate bonuses and that, ‘to handle such a business as this co-operative would require capital of about half a million’. His detailed response was the last to appear in the press. It had been an unfortunate exchange that no doubt had an impact on an easy passage for the proposed new venture.

Within two weeks an advertisement appeared retracting the auctioneers combined decision to raise commission rates:

The under mentioned Auctioneers beg to announce that the increased rate of commission was only agreed to at the request of the Auctioneers south of Wanganui to make a uniform rate for the North

Island, but in consequence of representations made, the undersigned have decided to revert to the old rates of commission:-

NEWTON KING STEUART & CORRIGAN NOLAN TONKS & CO. GILLIES, FANTHAM AND NALDER. J. R. STEWART & CO. GEO. TINDLE.

This was followed by a letter in the correspondence column: EGMONT FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LIMITED (To the Editor) Sir,- In case intending members of this Association should be mislead by reading the Auctioneers advertisement in Saturday’s issue, I may state that representations were made by this Association to the auctioneers to reduce their commission.

I am, etc., James Davidson, Chairman Provisional Directors.

Afurther general meeting of those interested in the formation of the proposed Egmont Farmers’ Co-operative Association was held later in January 1906 where the Prospectus and Articles of Association prepared by the provisional directors were submitted for consideration. At this meeting there were ‘about 70 to 80 being present’ and 14 apologies with expressions of approval of the proposed association. Only one point in the Articles produced any major discussion and that was concerning directors having power to commence operations ‘when 500 shares had been taken up’. Mr G. V. Pearce of Kakaramea thought the proposed capital was far too little and moved that 2,500 be inserted in place of the 500. The motion was seconded by Mr Hawken. Discussion ensued including a response from J. R. Corrigan who said that ‘if the amendments were carried it would mean that the company would never get started at all as there were many farmers who would ‘hang off until the concern was fairly going’. All they had done was to fix a minimum for the purpose of registration, ‘but no sane directors would launch out on a big business on the strength of 500 shares’. Mr Davidson said that if they raised it to 2,500, ‘you will simply squash the thing dead’. The discussion around capital requirements continued, with comments from Mr McKeown, Mr F. W. Wilkie, Mr Wills, Mr Dive, Mr Owen and Mr J. Ure Murray. Further amendments were moved by Mr Wilkie and seconded by Mr Best that a start not be made until 1,500 shares were taken up. Both of the amendments were lost by a large majority and finally, on the motion of Mr Inkster, seconded by Mr Livingston, the Memorandum and Articles of Association were adopted.

About 150 shares were ‘booked’ at the meeting, however it is stated, ‘as it was late a large number had left before the meeting terminated’. The threshold was never obtained. There appeared to be too much dissension among farmers who had split loyalties and following the retraction by the auctioneers, farmers it seemed, had little to gain and much to lose. This attempt to formalise commercial co-operation was without doubt driven by a few well-meaning and passionate individuals but in the end failed to weld together the main stream South Taranaki farming community.

It was a grand idea and one that should have appealed to the wider rural community. However, research failed to reveal any significant information other than a ‘Proposed Prospectus’ ‘Printed at the Star Office, Hawera’ and later the deregistration of the company set out below. No further record of what appears to be the formation of a farmers’ co-operative stock and station company can be found.

Company Registers, New Plymouth, Stratford and Eltham, Taranaki 1876–1926, record an entry

of Egmont Farmers’ Co-operative Association Limited, stating the company was Registered and a Certificate of Incorporation was issued on 18 July 1906 with capital of £50,000 with a Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Declaration by Solicitor and a Consent of Directors. However, the entry concludes with: Struck off the Register in pursuance of Section 266 subsection 4 of Companies Act 1906. Dated 27th November 1909. A.V. Sturtevant. Asst Registrar Companies.

A ‘Private Advertisement’ in November 1909 stated: ‘THE COMPANIES ACT 1908’ SECTION 266, SUB SECTION (4) Take notice that the name of the Egmont Farmers’ Co-operative Association (Limited) has been struck off the Register and the company has been dissolved. Dated at New Plymouth, this 27th day of November 1909. A. V. STURTEVANT Assistant Registrar of Companies.

With the name Fantham having disappeared from the Gillies and Nalder partnership the Egmont Farmers’ Union Limited was now just a memory. James Corrigan’s more recent proposal, the Egmont Farmers’ Co-operative, had also failed to raise sufficient interest and capital to float a new farmers’ co-operative. There remained, though, a strong determination within a large contingent of farmers to rally together and take the destiny of the farming stock and station industry back into their own hands. Over the next few years this seemingly innate desire was to manifest itself into an organisation that would finally stand the test of time and have the strength and stability to survive longer than any other Taranaki co-operative enterprise.

Gillies and Nalder continued operating successfully as a proprietary company with what was originally the Egmont Farmers’ Union Limited book of business seemingly as caretakers. One consolation was that the newcomer to town, Arthur William Gillies of Gillies and Nalder who acquired the business managed by the late Arthur A. Fantham, was an ardent supporter of cooperatives, although there’s no clue as to what prompted him to come to Hawera to establish his own proprietary auctioneering company. There are numerous possibilities. Following Fantham’s death he may have been enticed to come to South Taranaki to pick up where Arthur Fantham left off, or considered there was now a great opportunity to fill the void that he left. Now settled in Hawera, with the North Otago Co-operative experience fresh in his mind, he gladly provided his considerable knowledge of the livestock industry to South Taranaki and any rift that may have existed amongst those who had participated in the debate concerning the failed attempt to form the Egmont Farmers’ Co-operative in 1906 seemed to fade away. Gillies’ popularity in the town became quite evident. This educated, genial gentleman was from a well known North Otago family with extremely good connections. He chaired many organisations, including the South Taranaki Winter Show Company Limited and will go down in the history of Hawera for his determination to provide the town with adequate water reticulation. He is known for negotiating the construction of the Hawera water tower on the corner of Albion and High Streets. During the following seven years Gillies and Nalder stock auctioneers successfully operated and developed this substantial business portfolio.