AUSTRALIAN CITRUS FRUITS

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21236, 7 August 1934, Page 6

AUSTRALIAN CITRUS FRUITS

■i'j Jar. <,n vu'.: r:;K.\-,. Hitv-v\ -Ictte" of mino which you kindly published in .your issue ci* ■Aurnißt 1 wo.; written with th.e object of pointing out lhr.it. whatever the merits 'or demerits of thij embargo, prices did not. support the cry, of and that the clamour for wifcmoval . of the embargo was coming from people interested only in the greater profits to be made on Australian than un other citrus fruits. I submit that there could hardly be ■ 'a T more-convincing confirmation' of my arguments than that furnished by the glaringly insincere letter by "Panko" Which you printed ion August. 2. "Panko" begins: "It. was with much disappointment that 1 read the efforts .of P. Simeock and 'Orchardist' this morning}?*' We.4f>c.bcjnK talked down, to by one ■who MdceedK: "Instead of writing'clear lcgicj!lj>'facts." I; £laim to be logical 'but confess do not know what 'a "logical! fact:J,;is. Will. "Panko"' explain? Had had faith in his ability to diajvbse of rny arguments logically he wtiutdnot have wasted time and your i.pa«fi,",on mere disparagements. M#.letter, 'dealt with the claims and arguments put forward in a letter by "Paiikujy which you printed on Julv :■!(). IT flea It. with the above in the order'in'which'they occurred, yet mv letter was "very disjointed" and 'strayed from the subject." This logician and self-appointed literary critic condescends to credit me with having "honestly endeavoured to justify the recent, actions of the stonefruit and tomato growers" but finds that T "failed by advancing various farts that will not bear criticism." I made no attempt to justifv the ;aetioiis> of the growers and I was not aware that "facts" could be disposed ol by means of criticism. If, however, as "Panko's" remarks in at least one place imply, an assertion is a fact, the case may be different. In rny previous letter I noted that "Panko" had • ytuted- that had we been importing 'fruit from Australia fruits we could well, grow here, "local growers might ■nave just cause for grievance." I pointed out that only the embargo was keeping out Australian plums and cherries un season, of cour.-e) Obviously "Panko" could not'disposs of t r his point. With all his knowledge J»t the meaner tricks of controversy he is discreetly silent here. Perhaps subTe'ct/' 6re that J " strayed from the ♦hi W v d ™\ that a,] the effor ts <*

fornian oranges to-day sell at ordinary : pre-embargo rates. "Panko" realised 'hat hei-e was another direct hit. but, feeling that he simply must say something, replied:—" 'Orchardist's' statement that 'whatever the quantity of Australian oranges On the market, 'he Californian are three to five a shilling, is very ill considered, as it really proves my case by admitting that we must have citrus fruits. . Ttje truth of this lies in the fact that merchants can only import Califos nian oranges in quantities to sell profitably, when supplies of competitive- oranges are restricted owing to the heavy duties on American .importations." So whatever proves a thing to be black also proves it to be white. And "Panko" is a stickler for logic. That so far from "straying fi'om the subject" I had kept to "Panko's" own subject all too effectively is evident from the fact that he decided that it was time to vary the subject, apparently with a view to confusing the issue. So now we are told that "by entering into a controversy" about prices I am "avoiding the real issue." "Panko" proposes to switch ever to the ethical side of the embargo question and hopes to impress your readers" with a series of numbered questions and with references to the Christchurch Growers' Association. "Full, sound, and logical answers are invited. How's that for a case of the Devil quoting • Scripture? "Panko" has no doubt seen that my i object in writing you was to exposo I the humbug and greed that is behind the noise about the alleged scarcity of citrus fruits. I did not write a word in support of the embargo and have | never spoken in favour of it ar.y- ----; where. Further. I did not' write as a member of any association. My object I here is to draw'the'attention of your ; readers to the actual position as to I supplies, and prices of citrus fruits [under the embargo, and I repeat: will ' our fruit traders, ..wholesale or retail or both, give an official assurance as to prices at which, with the embargo lifted, best Australian oranges will be available to the public iu Cauterburv?—Yours, etc., ORCHARDIST. P.S. —My previous letter closed with a - question apropos of remarks in a letter by the president of the Christchurch Retailers' Association. The association has not replied, out of modesty no doubt, but should modesty be permitted to s'and in the way of public interest? I beg to repeat my question: what would be the attitude of the above association to a proposal to limit by law retailers' profits on fruits to 100 per Cent, on 'wholesale market prices? August C. 1934.