CLAIM FOR REWARD

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 23 August 1935, Page 8

CLAIM FOR REWARD

Discovery of Formula for Eradication of Ragwort

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT PIO PIO FARMER’S ACTION (Special to “The Star,”) HAMILTON, To-day. Many a South Taranaki farmer has given expression to the opinion that the man who could find a means of wiping ragwort out of existence in New Zealand would find also the secret to a fortune. In the last year or two considerable progress has been made in the fight against ragwort by means of the use of sodium chlorate, but so far nobody has appeared to have made a fortune out of it.

There is, however, an individual claimant for reward at the hands of the Government in the person of Mr W. E. Cayley-Alexander, of Pio Pio. Last year Mr Cayley-Alexander’s claim was heard before a Select Committee of Parliament, which returned a favourable recommendation. Still obtaining no satisfaction, the claimant again pressed for consideration and his claim was heard by an interdepartmental committee, which heard the evidence from Mr CaylcyAlexauder and officers of the Agricultural Department. Subsequently the claim was rejected entirely by the Government on the grounds that lie was not the first to arrive at the correct formula of sodium chlorate. Mr Cayley-Alexander has not, however, abandoned his claim and it is possible that another Select Committee of the House will be appointed this year. The point in dispute seems to lie in the proportions of the formula. Mr Cayley-Alexander does not claim that he discovered that sodium chlorate was a weed-killer, but he claims that he was the discoverer of the 4.75 per cent, mixture, which is now commonly known throughout the Waikato and King Country' as the Cayley-Alexander Method. The claimant states in his petition that, just as cyanide was useless for commercial purposes before the discovery of Cassell’s 0.3 solution, so ivas sodium chlorate non-effective in a practical way' until his formula was perfected after several y'ears of experimentation. One of the features of his method is that it calls for dry' spreading of the mixture instead of wet spraying. In his enthusiasm, Mr Cayley-Alexander gave the benefits of his discovery of the beneficial features of his formula, both as a weed-killing agent and a fertil-j iser, to many' hundreds of farmers. Thcj point now in dispute is whether the; Agricultural Department arrived at its findings after the present claimant, or whether it merely adapted to its own use the result of his many months of experimentation. Mr Cayley-Alexander is not seeking a vast fortune at the hands of the Government, but asks for relief from certain obligations ou a farming property he holds under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act, and a modest cash .sum.

He possesses a great deal of evidence in support of liis claim that he was the originator of the 4.75 per cent, formula; that the use of this formula has brought thousands of acres back into production; that it has stimulated the demand for lime and that it has increased the rail traffic in certain parts of his district consequent upon the increase in dairy production. His light for recognition is supported by a large number of persons and organisations in the Waikato anci King Country, and the outcome of the revived application before another Select Committee i* being awaited with interest.

Mr Cayley-Alexander holds testimonials to the efficacy of his mixture, the latest being from Mr D . V. Bryano, "cnairman of the Waikato Land Settlement Society, who, under date of August 12 writes, inter alia; “I have no hesitation in saying that the lime and sodium as recommended by you has done wonderful things and is, I am sure, going to en-’ able us to make first-class dairy farms out of what was ragwort-infested country.”