Putting Matters Right

How W.P. Bell was elected as a Dairy Co-op Director, 1933-34

It’s possible that in 1933 William Pool Bell of Townhead Farm on Cambridge Road stood for election as Director of the Tauranga Co-Operative Dairy Association expecting merely to fill his father’s shoes. Walter Common Bell’s ill health had led to his resignation in 1925 after fourteen years’ service, and he died the next year. [1] But those eight short years had seen a collapse of butter prices and increasing anxiety about New Zealand’s sensitiveness to “external conditions.” [2] W.P. Bell, elected third on the ballot on 8 August, was in for a bumpy ride. [3]

William Pool Bell, June 1943. Image collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell

The usual fuels for anxiety – rumour and controversy – were already at work. Well ahead of the 31 May 1932 balance date, the possibility that suppliers would be paid a mere seven pence per pound of butter was scotched by a statement in the Bay of Plenty Times. [4] The same statement, however, confirmed the gloomy reality that the payout would remain at ninepence-ha’penny. Later that year L. Tollemache stepped down as Chairman, a post he had held since 1927. [5] And at the 1933 meeting, chaired by his successor P.T. Keam, he was asked to publicly explain why, back in 1930, he had turned down the opportunity to improve the Co-op’s books by the sum of £2000.

The question turned on a lease of just over an acre of land owned by the Church Mission “under the old Military Cemetery.”  The 1930 Directors explained the rationale to the Co-op shareholders: they had “planned out a suitable area for a future factory [3 roods, 15 perches] when increase warrants it; the intention is to sublet the balance [1 acre 1 perch], which part we anticipate will practically leave us rent free. The site is adjacent to both deep water and the railway and will be a considerable saving in cartage of cream and stores.”[6]

None of these plans came to anything. The Board was still paying out £100 a year in ground rent when Tollemache was challenged at the 1933 general meeting by G Chapman of Te Puna, who asked “... if Mr Tollemache had received an offer for the land on the waterfront ... [and] if Mr Tollemache had advised the directors of any offer.”[7]

Tollemache averred that he had received an unspecific offer (from a Mr Green on behalf of the Shell Oil Company, to use as a depot) and had advised the Directors of it. All this occurred shortly after the lease had been taken. But now, one by one, the Directors told the meeting that they either were not aware of the offer or had not been on the Board at the time. We can only infer that this ambush affected his chances in the ballot. 

The votes were cast as the meeting traversed district meetings (fruitful opportunities for the exchange of rumour and opinion), the price suppliers paid for their butter (a loading of 2d. per pound!), and a break for lunch. They were counted after the appointment of scrutineers (and a wrangle over ballot closing time and methods), an address by the local MP (and former Chairman of the Association), C.E. McMillan, and discussion of several sundry items including a vote of thanks to the Dairy Factory manager and his staff. And Tollemache came narrowly fifth in a four-horse race [8] behind W.P. Bell [9] and C.O. Bayley.

Advert from Dairy Exporter's edition of the 1934 Report of Dairy Commission, p.19

All directors were present at the Board meeting on 9 September, the first that William Bell attended.  No mention of the recent general meeting appears in the Minutes. He successfully moved that a response to a letter of complaint from Mrs Kelso of the Womens Institute, seeking correction of a flawed advertisement, be made. [10] This was to introduce him early to anxiety levels in the dairy industry; even this small gesture had consequences.

Meanwhile, Tollemache had his champions. The adverse implications of his treatment of the Shell offer could not be allowed to stand. His supporter J. Hopkins lodged notice of a motion to remove Messrs Lever and Keam from the directorate. Keam chaired the extraordinary general meeting called to deal with this on 23 September, an unruly affair of claim and counter-claim, bearing a remarkable resemblance to twenty-first century website comment strings. Even a direct quote from the 1930 Minutes [11], confirming that on 12 April of that year the Chairman had not only received an offer (price not stipulated) and had advised the directors that he had turned it down, but also had had this decision endorsed by the Directors (moved Keam, seconded Lever) did not settle things down.

It comes as no surprise that the row descended into a procedural wrangle about the use of proxies in a proposed poll on the motion, vague references to legal opinions and “see you in Court” remarks.
 
At the Directors’ next meeting, on 14 October, William was prominent in support of moves by another Board member, Mr W.J. White, to regularise the stand-off between Chairman and former Chairman. [12] White wanted an opinion from the Board’s solicitors and preferred not to rely on Mr Keam’s own lawyer’s opinion. He moved accordingly. William seconded. Keam bristled. He considered this a personal, not a company, matter. "He had a perfect right to receive and pay for advice from whom he pleased." [13]

White got testy. This was a slight on the Company’s solicitors. [14] Would the Chairman indemnify the Company for costs entailed in a Court case? William temporised. "If the Chairman was prepared to get a written opinion from his Solicitors ... he would be perfectly satisfied. He would like also, as a matter of courtesy to have an opinion from the Company’s Solicitors, as he considered they were slighted.”

The move to avoid potential discourtesy to Sharp, Tudhope & Auld did not succeed, but the Chairman assured the meeting that a written legal opinion "as asked by Mr Bell" would be obtained. [15]

White, not yet placated, aired two further points of displeasure. He wished to correct a statement of the Chairman’s that was contrary to fact: he had not taken round the ‘Requisition’ to remove Messrs Keam and Lever. The Chairman conceded that he had relied on hearsay. White also pointed out that not only had no reply yet been made to Mrs Kelso; the Chairman had breached Company confidence by handing on her letter to “a third person”. The Chairman conceded again. He explained that an organiser of the Institute, visiting recently, had expressed concern that Mrs Kelso’s letter contained statements which (again) were contrary to fact. The Chairman had given her a copy in an attempt to help "put the matter right."

The energetic local atmospherics of Tauranga’s dairy industry of the 1930s illustrate, as well as desperate financial strain, a deep sense of concern for fair treatment that found immediate expression in the 1934 Commission and the (quite prompt) rehabilitation of L. Tollemache in the opinion of Tauranga farmers. [16] This concern continues to reverberate today.  Co-operatives rely on a sense of justice, driven by economics as well as social conscience. The long tradition of "putting matters right" can be aligned with modern anxieties about attitudes to dairying and a sense of division between country and town.  Tauranga dairy farmers were a spirited lot, but they ultimately stayed very loyal to a practice of sharing the risks of commodity production - and staying on side with the urbanites who bought their butter.

References
[1] Obituary, Bay of Plenty Times, Vol LIV, Issue 9262, 16 August 1926, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19260816.2.10
[2] Report of the Dairy Industry Commission, H-30 of 1934, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1934-I.2.3.2.37
[3] Acknowledgements are due to Bell’s daughter Margaret Mackersey, who kindly allowed access to his small archive of Minutes and associated papers from his time as Director of the Tauranga Co-Operative Dairy Company.
[4] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19320109.2.9
[5] He took over from C E McMillan, MP who held office until 1926: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19270809.2.20
[6] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19300812.2.18
[7] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19330808.2.22
[8] Ibid: It seems to have been a preferential voting process: total votes cast were significantly fewer than votes enumerated for the seven nominees.
[9] Ibid: Bell may not have been present when the results were announced.  The BP Times records thanks to supporters being offered only by Keam, Clarke and Bayley.
[10] Bell archive, Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors 9 September 1933, p.2., Collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell
[11] https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19330925.2.26
[12] Bell archive, Minutes of meeting of Board of Directors 14 October 1933 p.4., Collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell
[13] Ibid: all further quotes are from this source.
[14] Sharp, Tudhope & Auld, a firm still practising in Tauranga.
[15] Op. cit: Bell archive, 14 October 1933. Perhaps indicating that the legal opinion had yet to be put into writing? Collection of Margaret Mackersey, nee Bell
[16] He was re-elected in 1934 https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19340807.2.25 (W. P. Bell did not stand) and was still being elected to the Association in 1945: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BOPT19450717.2.9