SCHOOL VACATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19981, 24 December 1926, Page 10

SCHOOL VACATION.

ANNUAL PRIZE LIST

MIDDLEMARCH. Dux of scnool.—Caroline Howell. Standard Vl.—Ethel Thompson 1, David Schruffer 2, Ethel M’Kegg 5, Mabel M'Lean 4. Mrs D. Matheson’s prize; Kathleen M'Lean. Standard V.—Ronald Thomson 1, Sinclair Jones 2, George Newman 3, Marion Howell 4. Standard IV. —James MathesM 1, Jean Kennedy 2> Ronald Innes 3, Elsie Newman 4. Standard lll.—Gordon Stuart 1, Victor James 2, Joyce Mossent 3, Marie Reid 4. Standard lIA. —Jessie Chisholm 1, Dorothy Williams 2. ~ Standard 118. —Wynn Chisholm 1, Ansell James 2, Gilbert Taylor 3, Leonard Robertson 4. Standard I.—Walter Thomson 1, Annie Eord 2, Leonard Brown 3. ' £- AFFORESTATION. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I have read with interest the editorial in your issue of the 9th instant on the subject of afforestation. Unfortunately, extracts only from my address were published. Particular stress was laid on the necessity for close cooperation between the State, private forestry companies, and individuals, to plant up as early as possible the five milion acres of idle lands in this Dominion, which are unrivalled for tree-growing purposes. The members of the recently-formed Timber Growers’ Association are not opposed to the State planting timber for our future requirements. What the association does taka strong exception to is the suggested embarkation of the State into the business of promoting limited Lability companics, inviting the public to invest in the shares or bonds of such State companies, and then appropriating to itself the right to control he management of the companies it was competing with. Can it be said, with full justification, that this is a legitimate function of the State? One might just as well contend that, owing to the necessity for increased production of our primary products, the State should form companies for the purpose of carrying on dairying, the growing of corn crops, planting ot orchards, etc. i and then, to make certain that the puolic would invest in these Government flotations, give the State the right to control the operations of all private dairy farmers, grain growers, and fruit "rowers What would be the result if the State went in foi wholesale company flotations along these lines? Would it not discourage private enterprise and correspondingly reduce oui primary products? The very valuable spade work done by the State Forest Service in demonstrating the necessity for, and value of. planted forests, is recognised and acknowledged by private afforestation companies, true, the State has set an example in iffiis respec:t and has had a great many, difficulties to contend with in the initial stages ot forestry in this country. It had to collect the seed from various sources and make numerous experiments before it was able to fix on a few; of the more important species which should be adopted for commercial purposes. In this respect I maintain that the State is fulfilling its true function —that is, to show by example how private enterprise can establish a profitable industry. Is not the State dependent for its revenue on the profits of private enterprise and not the results from State-controlled industries. Should it not therefore encourage private enterprise in every reasonable way, and not unduly hamper its operations? Over 80,000 acres of State forest have now been established, and the opinion of the Timber Growers’ Association is that some attempt should be made to utilise the forests which have already been established. Less than 40 per cent, of the timber from our indigenous forests reaches the market, the balance being treated as' waste. In foreign countries, such as Finland and Sweden, the whole of this waste wood is utilised, and the so-called by-products are often worth considerably more than the sawn timber. If foreign countries can thereby add so materially to their national wealth, there is no reason why New Zealand should not follow their example.

There is a strong tendency on the part of some Government departments to engage in State-controlled industries, and it is this fetish of State control which is largely preventing the investment of British capital in this Dominion. I state this advisedly, because these views have been expressed to me on several occasions by prospective British investors who look on New Zealand as a country with great natural resources and capable of very much larger development. Once, however, you suggest State-controlled industries in competition with the industries in which they are proposing to invest their capital, they immediately become timid, and as a consequence this money goes to the development of industries in foreign countries. I think, gir, you will agree with me that the aim of every citizen of this Dominion should be to encourage by every legitimate means the planting of the five million acres of our present idle and unoccupied lands. By which method is this more likely to be accomplished—by the State floating afforestation companies and inviting the public to invest in its shares or bonds or by the encouragement and support of private tree planting companies and individuals? In the closing paragraph of your editorial you suggest that, in the proposed statutory control of afforestation companies, those concerned “sense a particular menace to their interests.” The menace which our association discerns is an unwarranted interference in its forestry operations, which would ultimately bo prejudicial to the investors. No company is likely to object to any reasonable statutory provision which will protect investors. There is a vast, difference between the bureaucratic control of industry and the framing of legislation intended to give security to those people who are putting their money into forestry investments. —I am, etc., W. M’Abthue, President, New Zealand Timber Growers’ Association. Auckland, December 15. [The condensation of Mr M'Arthur’s address seems to have unfortunately had the effect of conveying an erroneous impression. It hardly suggested that it was the State promotion of limited liability companies that ho was opposing. The interference of the State in such a direction would be clearly objectionable. But a policy under which the State issued bonds for the financing of its own afforestation operations would not be open to objection, ffp.. T.l