CORRESPONDENCE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12585, 16 August 1910, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE FREEZING WORKS

(To the Editor.)

| Sir, —I will not descend to answer a scribbler who demonstrates he belongs t:r that class only capble of being ansi wersd according to their folly. Your comments on my letter on the above subject are fair and reasonable; but you are mistaken in supposing the I have overlooked"the fart that such industries are of inestimable value to the ■country ; for the success of the stock station L have managed for others since Freezing Works were first introduced in New Zealand, up to a few years ago, was largely due' to such institutions, ot which' I have had experience. I have no cause to be hostile to the local Freezing Company; for it is to my interests in a pecuniary point of view that rhe works should remain on the site they now occupy, for I am a shareholder in the Castlecliff Railway Company. I therefore, in writing, have not been actuated by any motive except for the benefit of the public, and the Freezing Works, btit I know nothing of the affairs of the latter except what has appeared in the newspapers. The- Company is heavily handicapped, as their *rorks are on land the possession of -which can be resumed by the Harbour Board, after five years' notice ot such intention; therefore the Company in financing their business have at no time a longer certain tenure than five years to offer as security, and yet tho business at times requires large Mims of ready money. The personnel ot ! a Harbour Board changes; and there exists a growing feeling amongst all, that the- health of a community is the first consideration and that every dndusihe hazarding it, must go elsewhere. This menaces the permanency of the Freezing Works in the township of Castkeliff. Under even the circumstances enumerated above, can it be deemed unreasonable to have suggested that the Freezing Works should be removed to the South Spit, where the Company •could obtain, in place of a certain tenure for five years, a certain tenure as long as they' wished, with facilities for -wharf and shipping? Under such conditions the company could finance their business to advantage having their tenure, buildings, and plant safe from being disturbed by notice to quit, a,nd the cause of the conflict of opinion amongst lawyers as to what belongs to the Company and what to th© Harbour Board, Avhen the present arrangement is determined, would be guarded against in the new lease. I called attention to this subject " directly I heard of the proposal to expend £4000 in enlarging the works, as such outlay might tend to delay the removal of the concern, and add to the large sum payable to the Company by the Harbour Board sooner or later, when the public demand tho removal of the works from the town. In concluding I thank you for the space granted; and leave the matter to time, which alone can settle the question.—l am, etc., A. J. H.

August 13, 1910

(To the Editor.) Sir,—We are pleased that "The Reporter" has come forward with an explanation which clears the Wanscnnur Dairy Company from any responsibility in connection with the report in question, but we cannot allow "The Reporter" to state, without correction, that th-9 portion of the report "The secretary of the cheeso factory wanted another auditor appointed for the Wanpnmii Dairy Co." was correctly reported. We again deny having entered into tho discussion which took place re au- 1 ditorship. We trust that the Wanganui Dairy Co. will be good enough to come forward and correct "The Reporter" on this point.—Yours faithfully, WESTMERE PROPRIETARY DAIRY CO.