CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 18970, 18 June 1923, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

Letter* must be written in ink und on one eide of the paper. Unless a signature, not necessarily for publication, accompanies a letter as a guarantee of good faith it will not be considered. An asterisk attached to the signature to a published letter denotes that some portion has been deleted by the Editor, a right which is exercised in questions of public policy, libel, good taste and AMERICA AND PROHIBITION. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The cables appearing in your columns during the past few weeks, indicate the difficulties with which the American people are faced in enforcing the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment. It is clear that the fight for the proper enforcement of Prohibition is a hard and bitter one, and that all the determination of the United States will be necessary if the law’ is to be successful. There are certain considerations however, which cannot fail to strike the unbiased onlooker.

(1) A great nation of over one hundred million people has declared itself “dr/’ by constitutional amendment—an amendment ratified by 46 out of 48 States. (2) The writing in of this amendment came af'er a very long experience of Prohibition by many of the States cf the Union and by the growing conviction, strengthened by a period of war-time Prohibition, that the elimination of the liquor traffic was a necessary condition of the public welfare.

(3) A determined attack is being made upon the Constitution of the U.S.A, by the liquor interests of that country, who realise that the success of Prohibition there will mean the spread of dry conditions throughout the world. That point needs emphasising. It is the financial interests of the “Trade” that are at the bottom of the present agitation for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, or for some modification of the Volstead Law by permitting the sale of light wines and beer. The sentiment of the country regarding this is seen by the vote in Ohio last November when the light wines and beer proposal was turned down by nearly 200,000 votes. (4) The attempt to break down Prohibition in the U.S.A, is being supported by liquor interests in other countries, and in some instances by the Governments of those countries. The principle involved here is that a country has no right to make laws for the protection of its own citizens without also granting tfce right to outsiders to violate the law at their pleasure. It is not very pleasing to reflect that Britain has permitted the exportation of vastly increased quantities cf liquor to the Bahamas, though she knows that the only way that liquor can reach the U.S.A, is by rum pirates. Mr Ormsby-Gore, Undersecretary at the Colonial Office, excused this action on the ground that if we didn’t do it. some other country would. Would Britain allow any other country to land opium on islands adjacent to her coasts for the admitted purpose of smuggling? It is not very flattering to our British selfesteem that we allow such a traffic to operate against the laws of a great and friendly country. Other nations are also guilty in this respect. (5) The proposal of the President of U.S.A, to use all the force under his hands to enforce, the law, will be endorsed by all fair-minded people, even though it means calling out naval units for the purpose of destroying this illicit and outlawed traffic. The Overwhelming weight of public sentiment in America is on the side of enforcement, and it is incredible that such a powerful nation will sit idly by and see her laws violated either by her own citizens or by the people of other countries. All levers of fair-play will wish America well in her determined effort to rid herself of the incubus of the liquor traffic.— I am, etc., “VIGILANCE.” Invercargill, June 15, 1923. LIME TESTS. To the Editor. Sir, —Your issue of 14/6/23 contains under above heading the report of a lecture given by Mr R. B. Tennent, at Winton. It purports to extol the use of burnt lime. The first claim is that it contains nearly double the amount of Calcium oxide (popularly lime), that carbonate of lime does. For the purpose of comparison, we will suppose that we are dealing with perfectly pure materials. Commercially, this is not so, but as the burnt lime is made from the carbonate, the ratio will remain the same. We find by calculation that one ton of pure burnt lime is equal to 1.785 tons of pure carbonate of lime; this at 13/- per ton is £1 3s 24d. What can burnt lime be obtained at for one ton? We therefore start equal, with the same amount of Calcium oxide. Carbonate may be distributed without any further trouble. What about burnt lime? This must be specially dealt with. It may distributed, and for this a calm day must, be chosen, else there is great discomfort to men and animals, neither being happy on the job, and even the distributor looks in a sorry mess when the task is done. Another method is to dump the lime in heaps, perhaps covering these, then when the lime is slaked a second visit has to be made to distribute the heaps. I have even known a third visit to harrow. Now all this treatment costs money, and must be added to the cost of the lime. It is claimed that burnt lime has “a burning action” on the organic matter of the soil. This is not the case as long as it remains caustic, and in this state it will kill bacteria, but will not destroy organic matter. This numerous murderers have realised when they buried their victim in burnt lime, fondly hoping that it would be destroyed, but instead, it was preserved, and became evidence against them. Why one may preserve eggs in a solution of caustic lime. The action on organic matter only begins when the caustic becomes carbonate. It is then made soluble by the carbonic acid in the soil water, and whether from burnt

lime or raw carbonate is equally effective. For pastures the nearer it is kept to the surface the better, because the decayed grasses are destroyed, and animals will therefore eat close owing to the sweetness of the grass. Pastures should be made from deep, medium and shallow rooted grasses. A few experiments will decide wbat is the necessary amount of carbonate to add yearly, mixed with phosphates, and now and then potash; the character of the soil will decide the latter. There arc many farmers in New Zealand who, having followed this advice, are thoroughly satisfied with results. Steady growth is much better than forced, and the finest pastures in the world are those which, containing a few per cent, of carbonate of lime, give it out as required for the needs of plant and bacterial life. For cropping purposes, carbonate and fertiliser must be beside the seed so that when germination takes place, the conditions for the preparation of the food required by the plant are fully met. The bacteria so necessary for this purpose requires carbonate, so that their work may be executed. Carbonate acid is produced, with its accompaniment of heat, the soil is so prepared that the rootlets easily penetrate it and healthy plants ensue. Burnt lime would be a hindrance instead of a help under such circumstances. The farmer has no better help than ground carbonate of lime, all that is required is that it shall be used with judgment, not by fits and starts, but regularly, nature does not relish being unduly pushed, and responds best when attended to, and its needs cared for, drainage, preparation of soil, manure and carbonate. Then all is ready for genial weather and the production of good pastures and plenteous crops.—l am, etc., GEO. D. MACINDOE. Invercargill, June 15. To the Editor. Sir, —I read with interest in your paper of 14st inst. t.he lecture that Mr R.. B. Tennent gave at Winton to a number of Thornbury farmers; inter alia he says that burnt lime is quicker in action than carbonate. I beg to differ with him on this point, from experience and tests I have made with ground burnt, and carbonate of lime. I am not an agricultural chemist by any means, but. I have held for many years that burnt lime had to go back into its carbonate state before it did any good to the ground—and I set to work to prove it. I had a paddock which was drained swamp land. I ordered a 6-ton truck of ground burnt lime, the balance carbonate; both limes from the same kiln. The ground burnt lime then was 22/6 per ton. the carbonate 15/- per ton. I measured the ground for the burnt lime to give it the same money value per acre, namely 15/per acre. I was going to sow one ton of carbonate per acre. However, when I finished sowing the ground burnt lime I found that it had got 17/6 worth per acre. I then continued with the carbonate. I got on one ton per acre at a cost of 15/- per acre, the ground burnt having an advantage of 2/6 per acre. I then sowed the paddock down in turnips and grass, taking care to sow the turnips and grass the opposite direction to the way I sowed the lime, so as if the drill got altered, both got the same amount of manure and grass seed. I never told any one what I had done but waited results. Next year I took several farmers over the paddock to have a look at it. W’hen I got them to where I had finished sowing the one lime and started the other, they were unanimous that the gross was the best on the part that got the carbonate of lime. The second year the grass was just as good on the part that ?ot the ground burnt lime. I had proved then to my own satisfaction that carbonate of lime acted quicker on the ground than ground burnt lime as it took the latter one year longer to show the same results. | This has been my experience and I have used carbonate of lime ever s(nce with good results. Each farmer should experiment for himself, as all soils are not alike. —I am, etc., A. HENDERSON. West Plains, June 14.