CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 25 June 1928, Page 11

CORRESPONDENCE.

THINGS THAT MATTEL, (To the Editor) . Sir, —There may be those who would claim that only a liberal interpretation would classify the subject under discussion as a matter of public interest, for which your correspondence column is intended; but it is the one channel of expression open to me. Besides, the village pump being in a good state of repair at present permits of a period for the discussion of more momentous problems, such as the laying of ten feet of, concrete slabs; hence my indulgence. If Mr. Elliott’s statement in to-day’s “Star!’ accomplishes anything, it will be to raise the comedy previously mentioned to the dignity of a farce. For instance, it is put forward as a serious suggestion that I get a private firm to do certain work which the council insists on for its own purposes, and which I do not (this with emphasis) require, and only applied for to keep within the law, or the by-law. My duty would be to pay for it, and to that I did not object, having iterated and reiterated to iMr. Elliott that “immediately the work is commenced it will be paid for.” The council has the staff, the plant, and the material on hand —and prefers to keep them on hand. My sporting friends would describe the idea (of having it done privately) as the progeny of Absurd rrom an unknown dam. But, setting aside the relative circumstance—and there is one of which the town clerk is fully aware—would a private firm refuse to commence the work until paid for it, especially when the “risk” was considered? As to the “risk,” sir, permit me to digress. Once upon a time there was a village blacksmith who “owed not any man,” a characteristic so notable in those days, as in these, that greatness was thrust upon him and posterity will' never cease to sing his praise. Although I do not wish to make a song about it, I am in exactly the same position as my compeer under the spreading chestnut, tree. Passing on to Mr. Elliott’s statement that I am the first person who lia.s refused to pay when making application, who can say that we have not here a precedent in embryo, and that two centuries hence local solicitors will not be quoting Hawera Borough Council v. Swanlsou ? Still, Mr. Neilson informed me (in bis own precise phraseology) that “the council have been let down so often that,they have made it an inflexible rule that the work must be paid for in advance,” and the statements don’t quite seem to harmonise. In January I asked the town clerk: “will the council positively refuse' to do the work except on the condition stated?” To this no reply. In March I asked the Mayorto suggest to the department concerned that one of three courses seemed desirable—either that the work be gone on with, that the prosecution proceed, to- clarify the matter, or that I be notified the 'subject was closed Still, no reply. In June Mr. Elliott submits a statement, and now no one but himself knows where or how the matter •stands. Concluding, I will with your permission refer to the relative circumstance. In the course of world travel and residence in every white country of the British Empire I have met many civil servants and civic officials, who almost without exception were conscious that- servility is not the. synonym of civility, and that courtesy is possible without sacrifice of either dignity or independence. In this regard I may have been spoiled, for I have come to believe I am entitled to the same degree of courtesy as I accord —that I have no right to expect more and no reason to accept less. Thanking you for the space allotted, —I am, etc., J. SWANSON. Hawera, June 23, 1928. AN EXPLANATION. (To the Editor). Sir, —In your issue of the 22nd instance appears a report of some remarks of mine at the annual meeting of the- Aysliire Breeds’ Association on the subject of the recently published report regarding the manufacturer of cheese from milk differing in fat concent. As your report somewhat misrepresents what 1 said, or at least what i intended to say, I should be glad n you would give me the opportunity to correct it.

What I said—inter alia—was that many Jersey breeders have long admitted that lower testing milk produces more cheese per pound of fat than high testing milk; but they claimed that the cheese made from hightesting milk was of such high value because of its greater fat content, that this counterbalanced the advantage of the lower testing milk in yield of cheese. The investigation had confirmed the opinion on the quantity of cheese made per pound of fat, but had proved the. latter contention to be quite wrong, the difference in value between the two classes of cheese being so small as to be quite negligible when compared with the very considerable increase in quantity of cheese per pound of fat. After referring to the present system of payment for milk for cheese making as unfair to the supplier oi lower-testing milk, I mentioned that Mr. Veale had devised a system- that he claims will give a much greater degree of fairness than the present basis of payment or any other that has hitherto' been tried, and it was in this connection that I expressed the opinion that if necessary, perhaps, further investigation of this system might be undertaken by Massey College.—l am, etc-., FRED MILLS. [Letters to the Editor from W A. Sheat, “A Worker,” and “D.J.H.,” hare been held over for publication in to-morrow’s issue.]