THE FRUIT CONTROL POLL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21241, 23 January 1931, Page 8

THE FRUIT CONTROL POLL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As an ardent advocate of any measure which will bring about an improvement in the local markets and improve the returns of the fruitgrower, I regret exceedingly the correspondence which has been appearing in your columns on the above subject, all directed against the objects in view in adopting the Control Bill. , Particularly do I regret the attitude of the Co-operative Fruitgrowers which, far from discouraging the objects of the conference held in Alexandra in September last, should have supported them and counselled all its members to do the same. Its letter published in your issue of the 16th inst. had but one motive, the crushing of any attempt to better conditions, notwithstanding that it was established for that purpose. The Fruit Control Bill, admittedly, does not lind favour with many, if any, growers in so far as it applies to local markets, but unfortunately it is the only statutory measure which exists and can be adopted in order to introduce compulsory standardisation. Growers from the various conferences held in Wellington have er-‘ deavoured to persuade the Government to introduce a marketing measure which would afford the requisite facilities for introducing standardisation, but without success. At the conference he.M in Alexandra the following motion was carried unanimously:— Moved by Mr Leslie (council). and seconded by Mr Stevens (Co-operative Fruitgrowers): That this conference favours the adoption of local control under the Fruit Control Act in this province, and that, when carried, the minimum action be the adoption of a minimum standard, and the maximum action be a general standardisation with advertising, unless a direct mandate is given from growers of the district to the board to proceed further.

From this it is quite clear that the duties of the board are limited to this particular provision and nothing further can be attempted. Why in the name of all that is fair, then, did not the Cooperative Fruitgrowers append this to its letter? Ihi reason is obvious. It is out to kill the efforts of the growers themselves, as represented at the conference, and the amazing thing is, that all the delegates but myself are among its members and its chairman, representing it. one ot the keenest advocates. The board, a very small one, is elected by the growers themselves and not bv the uov'uuor-General as the letter of the Co-operative Fruitgrowers states, and it would be bound to give a pledge to carry out the resolution of the conference, or its members would not be elected. J.hui the interests of growers are amply safeguarded. Further, if unsatisfactory, the whole thing can be voted out after a year’s operation and on a bare majority. The various references to an expensive board, secretary, etc., are simply the creation of bogeys to scare the'voter. I have been associated with many organisations of various interests and I have yet to discover the public-spirited man, be he fruitgrower Or any other calling, who is not prepared to back’ up his enthusiam by service without remuneration, especially where it is a case of giving something a start. A little expense is unavoidable, but it would be a mere bagatelle in comparison with the benefits that would accrue In conclusion let me say that it is a pity that some writers cannot discuss a subject without ascribing to someone else ulterior motives. The remark in one letter that a secretary had been appointed and rumour identified him as a prominent busi-noss-cum-orchardist man resident in Dunedin, is as unfounded as it is contemptible. I am, etc.. J. H. Waigth, Jun. TO THE EDITOR Sm,—As your correspondent “ NonControl ” has been kind enough to mention, my name as one of those responsible for the present poll being taken, 1 crave your indulgence to make quite clear the circumstances under which I became associated with the proposal. Incidentally, if “ Non-control ” is a bona fide fruitgrower and as such taking the interest he should in his local Fruit Growers’ Association, he should have been sufficiently acquainted with what led to the present step being taken, and what I am about to say should not be news to him. At the last Dominion Fruitgrowers' Conference, held in Wellington under the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Fruitgrowers’ Federation, an Otago delegate expressed his personal opinion that a fresh poll should be taken in Otago with a view to setting a compulsory standard for local market fruit, and making provision for advertising the value of fruit as a regular article of diet. As federation director for Otago, I was requested to ask all fruitgrowers’ associations (including the Co-operative Fruitgrowers') to ascertain whether their respective members desired to consider such a proposal. As a result a conference was held at Alexandra on September 20 at which every fruitgrowers’ association in Otago was represented, Mr S. A. Stevens, chairman of the Co-operative Fruitgrowers, being present as the official representative of that body. I was asked to take the chair, and the following resolution was unanimously carried on the motion of Mr Leslie, seconded by Mr Stevens: —“That this conference favours the adoption of local control under the Fruit Control Act in this province, and that, when carried, the minimum action lie the adoption of a minimum standard, and that the maximum action be a general standardisation with advertising unless a direct mandate is given from the growers of the district to its board to proceed further.’’ Mr Waigth, jun., and the writer were asked to prepare the necessary petition to the Government asking for the poll to be taken, and this, as growers know, is now proceeding by postal ballot. It was also the wish of the meeting that a circular be sent to each voter explaining the position and emphasising that on no account would, any board be elected unless on a pledge to do nothing beyond standardising and advertising without a mandate from the growers. My association with the proposal has been in my capacity as federation director, and I have made it clear, both pri-

vately and from the public platform ? that in the event of the poll being earned, 1 decline positively to accept nomination for any executive position whatever in connection with the board’s operations. May I suggest that if your correspondents who write over noms de plume are genuine in their desire to see the right thing done, they should use their own names and not resort to veiled innuendoes from, behind the shelter of anonymity.—i am, etc., H. TURNER. Dunedin, January 22.