PILLAGING

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23745, 17 September 1942, Page 6

PILLAGING

Sir, —Much so-called pillaging is deliberate destruction by watersiders. I have seen hundreds of cases of fruit deliberately booted to pieces and flimsy cases tramped on and destroyed. When I spoke to the Government officer on the spot he said he dare not interfere as the watersiders were the bosses. Later in the day J, spoke to the Dix - ector of the Horticulture Division, the department which hunts with the Internal Marketing Division in harassing the growers, and complained of the hounding of growers, and yet the watersiders did as they pleased. The reply was: “Oh! We can get you chaps, but no department is game to touch the wharfies.” Condensed milk, biscuits, chests of tea, and other commodities were similarly maliciously, handled, just to show how defiantly powerful they were. Handling of eggs was their special delight. —Yours, etc., E. K. BANFIELD. Rangiora, August 27, 1942. [Mr J. Flood, secretary of the Lyttelton branch of the Waterside Workers’ Union, to whom this letter was referred, said: “Your correspondent states that there is deliberate destruction and malicious handling of cargo on the Lyttelton waterfront. We state that, so far as the majority of the members of the union are concerned, this statement is definitely incorrect. If your correspondent is able to prove his assertion against any individual members we will be pleased to have his assistance, and we will take the matter up with such members. If his charges prove to be correct such members will be drastically dealt with by the committee of management of the Lyttelton branch of the union.”] [Mr W. K. Dallas, Director of the Horticulture Division, comments on the above letter as follows: “Mr Banfield in his letter attributes to me a statement which he himself made, with the comment that that was the position in spite of the fact that I was not prepared to admit it. As a matter of fact, Mr Banfleld did all the talking on the subject, and the conversation passed on to other matters of mutual interest. I am at a loss to understand why Mr Banfleld should credit me with a statement which he himself made,”]