FRUITGROWERS AND COOPERATION.

Nelson Evening Mail, 21 July 1916, Page 3

FRUITGROWERS AND COOPERATION.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—Tinier the above heading Mr D. Hhining has a letter in yours of the 20th. in which it would appear that I have made certain mis-statements. Now, Mr training was present at my meeting at the Lower Moutcre on Monday last, and I it would have been more to the point-, and certainly in better spirit, if he had asked the questions at the meeting, as invited, and I would have been able to answer them at once. All this business goes to prove that the more we write and talk the further we seem to get away from the point. 1. am certain the only- way to arrive at any definite eon.-lnsluii i.* for a round-table discussion with ail parties. I do not intend to take part in any newspaper controversy, but T will endeavour to correct Mr Raining in some of his statements. The night prior to the meeting of directors in Wellington. 1 met Mr A. P. Allport and gave him the copy of the minutes of the "meeting at the Tpper Moutere and the prospectus, of the proposed new company. Later in the same evening I met Mr* Allport with Mr Anderson, the company's solicitor, whom 3 mistook for a director. Mr Anderson was openlv hostile to the scheme, and. I repeat, I'had -reat difficulty in getting permission from Mr Allport (as chairman) to be present at the meeting, owing, as I have said, to Mr Anderson's attitude. On the following mprniug I was at the office where the meeting was being held at 10.15 a.m. and was called in by Mr J. T. Horn at 10.35. Tlv chairman (Mr A. P. Allport) said they "had to bo at the Town 'Hall at 11 a.m.. and that, therefore, they could only give me a few minutes. Yet I was there as the official representative of the most representative gathering of fruitgrower.that has possiblv met for any one purpose I Mr Haining is quite correct in his statements as to the reason why tin company" would l not entertain the proposal, but when I found out that posi tion, I asked -whether, feeing their com pany's name and articles of associaticiwore wide enough to embrace the whoh district, thev would gi Vf - ™e a messan* to tnke back to the meeting I represented, stating that their company could b( tht- provincial one. The chairman's reply was that he regretted they could no'. do as I suggested. Now with regard tr i the Nelson-Stcke Company, the positioi is this: .Despite certain withdrawals. ; gentleman in this city offered to underwrite the shares necessary to float, bn. after the meeting at the Upper Men tere, and after listening to the views o' Tasman's representatives as well as tin j others, our directors present came awa* with the impressions that the provincia scheme was a certaintyi. So much s< I that the matter of the Xelson-Stoki Company was dropped, and all our m terests centred' i:i the provincial schema This is what I told the meeting in Wei lington, but added. "Now that you car nof see your way to do as the combine* meeting* suggested, we shall have t< I lapse, as the days of grace expire to ' morrow, and it is impossible for me !be home and fix matters by then." ! repeat again, that the more we talk tlv j further we get away from the professec object we all have in view—amalgams tion. and I am going to put my theorie into practice by refraining from re ferring to the subject again. I am. etc.. H. G. HILL.

(To the Editor.) Sir,— Mv relpv to Mi' J>. Haininp: wi'. cover all the points raised by Mr Ni>v tage. except his remarks that 1 vantpc the. Tasoian Company to join a company to be floated for the whole province with mvself as general Manager. At th< meeting' at the Upper Moutere when tn. question of managership was consideret I -withdrew" from the meeting, but 1 hav. the authority of Messrs W. O. .Russell Leslie Reynolds, Y. J. Hall, Albeit Gil bert, and O. 'H 1 . CUaokay for stating tha Mr F K Xotiage moved a resolution -That Mr 'H. G. Hill be appoints general manager, etc., etc." N-ul sed. I am. etc., ' H. G. HILL.