LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1790, 8 November 1919, Page 9

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

EMBARGO ON FRUIT TREES. , To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —I am very sorry for Mr R. Nairn lin his position as president of the New I Zealand Nurserymen's Association, and [especially in connection with his neces--. isary defence of the embargo on fruit trees. It is not like the genial Robert to descend to personalities-and abuse, but, with no case, what was the poor man to do? As a newspaper writer for many years, one would also expect Mr Nairn to be sure of his facts before rushing into print. His letter shows how little he knows of the whole business. His so-called vicious attack was delivered three months ago, and was reported in his official organ two mouths | ago, and it was only brought forward again at the last meeting of the Fruit- ' growers' Association, to see if they were prepared to alter their previous decision to ask for the removal of the embargo* The facts of the case are • these:—

' That the Government a"few years ago prohibited the importation of fruit trees from Australia, the movement being engineered by the nurserymen of New ■ Zealand, to prevent the importation of root-knot or crown-gall. The Fruitgrowers' Conference did approve the prohir bition, but fruitgrowers have learned to regret it, to their cost. Mr T. W. Kirk, Director of Horticulture, has stated that it has not been proved that it is, or is not, a menace to the industry. Further, Mr Kirk spent some months in Australia trying to find root-knot, but we have not had a report that he was successful, and we have the statement of the Australian experts that there is no root-knot in Victoria. We have rootknot in New Zealand, and have it in '. New Zealand nurseries. Mr Nairn has misstated me right through his letter. For one thing, I did not say that Aus- , tralian trees were better than New Zea-land-grown trees, except in relation to the stone fruits. I specially exempted the pip fruits from rny remarks. Neither did I "strongly move" that the embargo be lifted, but stated the position, and left it to the growers to say what was to be done.

I do say most emphatically, from a knowledge of the industry from one end of New Zealand to the other, and especially after a careful inspection of the orchards of Central Otago, that the Australian-grown stone' fruit trees aTe giving better results than the New Zealand-grown trees. At a meeting in Central Otago of growers, of over 40 ex- . perienced growers, not one favoured the New Zealand trees, and they were unanimous for the removal of the embargo. We had this sen on acres and. acres of land prepared for planting in stone fruits, and were not able to get the trees, and, further, the Sales Committee of the nurserymen told the Fruitgrowers' Federation that they could not supply the demands for two seasons. Is the fruit industry to be tied up to benefit the nurserymen? Are fruitgrowers to be forced to use New Zealand trees which after years of culture are to be almost useless to them? I deny absolutely that myself or anyother authority in the fruitgrowing industry in New Zealand is actuated by motives other than the best interests of the fruit industry. No threats, abuse or personalities will prevent me from stating what I honestly believe to beto the advantage of the fruitgrowing§g industry.—l am, etc., » jr. LONGTON.