Nelson Cotton Mill

Press, Volume C, Issue 29679, 24 November 1961, Page 3

Nelson Cotton Mill

l Sir, —Your consistent antiNelson editorial attitude is j very irritating; so much so , that I canot get on with my 1 housework; You are always i destructive, never construci tive, over Nelson. First it • was the trunk railway link, i Then it was the pulp and r paper mill where you favour , Canterbury in spite of Nelson having all the raw material at hand. Now it is the cotton mill which you have viciously attacked from a most narrow angle. Next. I suppose. it may be oil. If oil is found in Nelson as a result of the present search, “The ' Press" is almost sure to say > there is something wrong ■ with it. In Canterbury, of

course, it would be another matter. I wonder whether you would take the same line over the cotton mill if it was sited in Hornby or Riccarton. And I wander whether you will be game to publish this critical letter. — Yours, etc.. WIDER OUTLOOK. November 18, 1961. [Our correspondent's domestic duties may not have allowed her time to read all our leading articles. On November 16, 1960, we supported, on general principles, not only a wood pulp industry but a rayon industry for Nelson. The leading article concluded: “Raw cotton will have to be imported for the projected cotton mill at Nelson, but the basic material for rayon is close at hand in the forests. Another important ingredient in rayon manufacture is caustic soda, production, of which might provide the most economic future for the salt works at Lake Grassmere. Then, indeed, there might be both need and justification for a railway to Nelson.”—Ed., ‘‘The Press.”]