The Moumahaki State Farm and Mr Gillanders.

Otago Witness, Issue 3017, 10 January 1912, Page 20

The Moumahaki State Farm and Mr Gillanders.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your correspondent “ Fair Play repi'os to my letter in your issue of the 12th December last, and states that “as an old southern farmer and as one who has for many years lived in the Taranaki province, and having had the experience,” considers he is qualified to say a little on the subject matter 'of my letter. I think it will occur to most people that “Fair Play'" cannot be the experienced farmer he claims to be, or he would have been more guarded ■ln trying to give the credit for the high state of perfection to which the Moumuiiaki Farm had been brought to Mr Primrose M’Connell during the short period he had been manager, between the time of Mr Gillandor* leaving and the visit of the Scottish commissioners. Experienced farmers know that it takes years of study, experience, and careful working to ascertain the best results that can bo obtained from any farm, and, after years of observation, Mr Gilianders demonstrated conclusively what could be produced by up-to date farming on scientific lines, and he it was who was really responsible for the state of things which led to the favourable comments of the Agricultural Commisslonem. That such results cannot be obtained in a year or two, I think Mr M‘Connoli —who, it is understood, is a capable manager, and. it is not my desire here to reflect in any way upon nun —would bo the first to admit. Here it is where cunningncss comes iu, and on the part of your correspondent, and unfairness, not “fair play,” in attempting to divert the credit from Mr Gilianders, to whom it is duo, in his endeavour to justify the department’s action in the matter. As it is understood that all the Government experimental farms have been under the same directorate, it is significant of Mr Gilla.ndciti’s exceptional success that the farm that had been controlled by him eo long should receive praise, while the comments of tho commissioners on the others would appear to justify the Opposition in calling out, as your correspondent puts it, that the’ farms wore expensively and badly managed Then, again, it is made to appear that Mr Gilianders was responsible for tho expenditure of £IOOO a year on the fruit portion of the farm and the work of another division, and which the Minister found it necessary to do away with. Experiments by such divisions would naturally be conducted under the direction of the responsible officers of tho divisions concorned, quite apart from Mr Gilianders’s position as manager of the agricultural portion of the farm, the necessity for such experiments, and the expenditure connected therewith, being a policy of the department, and for which Mr Gilianders could not bo held responsible. I am afraid “Fair Play” is not entitled to this designation.— I am, etc., Interested.