FRUIT CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 13 August 1928, Page 2

FRUIT CONTROL

(To the Editor)

Sir,—Mr Snodgrass has a further reply to. me in your issue of the 10th. What a spineless Government the Reform party must be on Mr Snodgrass's showing when they allow, a few fruitgrowers to dictate a policy to them. Mr Snodgrass takes the result of the shipment to South America of a quantity of apples by one boat to try and prove that the Control gets better prices than others. Surely ho does not think that can be a fair conclusion. I was not taking this season's results, as until the season's returns are in full they are useless for a- comparison. Mr Snodgrass goes for information to a publication that is issued in the interest of and to bolster up compulsory control, and as a little more compulsion I have to help to pay I'qr the cost of its publication, however much I disagree from the sentiments expressed in its columns. Mr Snodgrass can rest assured that it is not because of control tha,t New Zealand apples have a good name, but in spite' of control. Mr Anderson is wrong in thinking that I misunderstood his reference to. the agents' commissions, and I say again that the Control Board has not saved the growers from the payment of those charges. , As a proof the brokers charges are, as I said before, the same and in some cases more than under individualism, and on top of that we have to pay the thousands of pounds costs of the Control Board.

When the Control Board paid the agents, compensation, I never heard that they paid any to those Nelson growers who had worked up a trade with Honolulu. They compensated them by refusing _to allow them to export, and then allowed Auckland growers to take what Nelson had built up, by allowing them to export individually to Honolulu. Neither did they allow any compensation to my firm for the loss of our export to ap overseas market that we had established. However, we have the satisfaction of knowing that Australia is now supplying that market. Mr Anderson is quite wrong in thinking that those who object to control can afford to take risks; that is the very reason that they do object to control. At least I cannot afford to grow apples at the price the Control Board sees fit to deal out to me. Perhaps Mr Andersoh has some way of doing it, and seems quite satisfied to grow apples for the benefit of the brokers, shipping companies, and large Control Board expenses and salaries.—Yours, etc., ALFRED V. ALLPORT. Stoke, 11th August.

, (To the Editor) Sir,—During the past few days, there have appeared in the "Mail" letters both for and against control in the fruit industry. It is interesting to read in your cable news of Saturday, independent support for the principal of compulsory control, which while referring to wheat growers,, is equally applicable to ourselves. Under the heading "Canadian Wheat," dated Vancouver, Bth August, it was stated:—Mr Sproule, director of the Western Canada wheat pool says: "The prosperity wftfeh abounds in-Western Canada is the ere* ation of 60 per cent of the farmers, who are banded together co-operatively. Tho Other 40 per cent carry no burden, yet they share the benefits'which is not fair. We have compulsory, education, why not compulsory co-operation." Words such "as this, from a man of Mr Spronle's standing in the business world, must; carry somo weight. The New Zealand fruitgrowers , have wisely brought the above into effect already.— I am, etc., FRUITGROWER. 11th August.