Apples and Sacrilege

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 64, 27 February 1935, Page 8

Apples and Sacrilege

(To the Editor). Sir, — In jour Monday evening's paper appears a letter written by Air S. AlcCosh expressing disgust with a Hastings fruiterer tor sending a thousand cases of last year's apples to be destroyed. He also asks why surplus iood stuffs are not given to the poor. Well, seeing that lie is of such a philanthropic turn of mind, 1 would advise him to acquire a thousand empty cates and if he should not have a lorry of his own to hire one and go round the orchards and 1 am sure there are lots of orchardists who will give him permission to fill his cases with good, sound windfalls much ireshsr and nicer than the diied up, wizened, shrivelled apples which have been in cool ttoro for months, and over which incidentally the above unfortunate fruit seller has lost a considerable sum of money, especially when the orchardist knows our friend wants the windfalls for such a wortliy cause as distribution amongst the poor. Long before ho has carted his thousand eases round he will be full up and there will be the balance, a big balance, find their way to the dump, ( have tried it myself with a car load and it would make this letter too long to give my experiences getting my cutes back. Anyway, 1 came back with part of the load and threw them out to rot and was as muck disgusted as Air McCosh it at the destruction of the thousand cases refered to. Air McCosh refers to sacrilege, destroying the fruits of the earth. Everyone, Sir, places the onus of this destruction at the wrong end namely, the producer, f saw in a religious paper recently the writer implied that the producer destroyed produce to keep prices up. There never was a greater fallacy. He will take an illustration— The Canadian farmer who burnt hi* crop of standing wheat. Tticre are two farmers near each other. They each had one hundred acres of wheat. One farmer’s crop was two or three week* earlier than the other, which enabled him to thresh it, lorry it and rail it possibly a thousand miles and ship it to London. Just as the other man’* crop was ready to cut he got a cable to say his wheat wag sold for 22/- per quarter, which was all swallowed up in expenses from the threshing mill to the merchant. He had to shoulder the cost of sacks and all his labour from tho standing corn to the threshing mill for nothing. The other man, on learning this, burnt his standing crop. How arc these farmers to live? They are worse off than the poor of London, from whom wo are told they withhold the good things of God. What chargin to be chided that he burnt his corn to keep tho price up when he,like the poor of London, has to live on charity or starve. Wheat was 22/- a quarter in London, and at the same time tho baker was charging 9d per 41b loaf to feed the poor. Aly father was a baker and he used to gauge the price h* charged for his bread by the price L» wheat. In those days wheat used to hover round about 60/- a quarter, and when it was 60/- a quarter he charged delivering from door to door 6d p c <-’ 41b loaf. Now, Sir, who commits the sacrilege —the man who burns the wheat (the one who dumps the apples) or all those taking the fat profits between the farmer and the consumer? —Your*, etc., A POOR FARMER. Hastings, Feb. 26.