PUBLIC OPINION.

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19012, 1 August 1933, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION.

tVs expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents must write in ink. IMPROVEMENT OF WOOL. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Regarding the controversy on the improvement of wool it has been suggested that stud breeders should submit to having their rams inspected before they are sold to the ordinary pastoralist. This was tried by the Corriedale Breeders’ Society at the last ram fair. The inspection, although carried out by two most competent and excellent show judges, produced great dissatisfaction. Certain sheep were eliminated which were brought out in natural condition, and did not fill the eye as more pampered animals do. Some of these eliminated sheep were sold privately at good prices to competent sheep men, while the sale of unrejected sheep was in progress by auction.

Considering the number of sheep in New Zealand of the big, robust type, which produces a good fat lamb, but whioh grows wool of 40/44’s spinning count, commonly called carpet wools, the average value of a sheep of the New Zealand wool clip is well above the average of most countries and our fat lamb export is above them all, both for numbers and quality. To prove that there is a great difference between clothing wools and. oarpet wools we will quote from the second wool sale held in Auckland in. January, 1933. Superfine Corriedale 56/58’s brought 12Jd, coarse crossbred 40/44’s 4d to 4|d. It must be remembered that it is only on the dry country that the highprioe wool can he grown successfully. Judging from the number of sheep exported from New Zealand, some in orates, alive, as high-class stud sheep, and many millions as mutton and Jamb in freezing chambers, there are many great stud flock-masters In this country. Their work appears to be appreciated by overseas buyers, more so than nearer home.

As a stud breeder I cannot see that a wool fund levy is going to help anybody. Both the Lincoln and Massey Colleges can be of great use to the wool industry by oarrying out experiments with sheep dips. Sheep can he kept dean of ticks by using a dip which kills the tick egg. Wool that is neither dip-stained nor tickstained Is worth pence a pound more than that which is stained or mushed into cross fibres and noil by rubbing. —I am, etc.,

G. H. ENSOR Corriedale Stud Farm, Hanmer Springs, July 25, 1933.

HAMILTON REP. TEAM. (To the Editor.) V. Sir, —After the deplorable exhibition by the Hamilton representatives against Taupiri on Saturday I cannot see’ what possible chanoe Hamilton has of lifting the Peace Cup from Morrinsville, even allowing for three or four players who played in the Waikato team, unless the selectors alter their team somewhat and put some workers in the forwards, instead of shiners, and one or two fighting men,' who, of course, are better out. of a team, as they only get it Into trouble. The inside backs played very poorly, sending out some shocking passes, and when in possession ran aoross the field and orowded the wings, who never had one chance all day, the only tries '(both by Porteous) coming as the result of work down the blind side, one by Dempsey and, I think, the other by Cassidy. Every time a movement started on the open side it broke down before it reached the wings. What is wanted is good straight-running Inside men who will make the openings for the speedy wingers, not players who send out lobs and, expect wingers to take them with the opposition on top of them when the ball gets to them. As Porteous Is a good, hard and a straight runner he is wasted on the wing, and would do well at centre or second five-eighths. Unless we see better exhibitions of football then we saw on Saturday the public will not go to Rugby Park, and it is the public supporters who pay for the football and keep the coffers of the Hamilton Rugby Union full. I would like to suggest a team whioh, in my opinion, is superior to the one that took the field for Hamilton on Saturday. Starting with some workers in the forwards; Front row, Priscott, Palnton, Chitty; second row, Stewart (R.), Hedley, Tristram, Attwood; baok row, Hall (F.); half, Denz or Dempsey; five-eighths, R. Johnson, W. Cassidy, or Welch; centre, Porteous; wings, Griffiths and Whorskey; full back, Clarkin.—l am, etc.,

RUGBY SUPPORTER. Hamilton, July 31, 1933.

BROKEN WINDOWS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I have read with Interest the letter written by the Hamilton Methodist Church trustees and published in your issue of July 26, and the reply thereto written by Mr L. F. Bedford, of Peter Pan Motors, and published In your issue of July 28. I am familiar with the whole of the circumstances surrounding the claim, and I am inclined to think there Is an innocent misunderstanding existing in Mr Bedford’s mJnd with regard to the secretary of the trust’s statement. The secretary’s letter is strictly and technically correct. The misunderstanding has arisen by reason of the contents of the last paragraph of the secretary’s letter, which reads: “The trust was not consulted in regard to the action, did not take part in the proceedings, and none of the trustees, either individually or collectively, had any knowledge, prior to yesterday, of what was being done ‘ln their names.’ ” Mr Bedford had certainly approached the secretary and made It clear that he thought It was unreasonable that the Insurance company should proceed to recover from a tenant of the owner the value of a platcglass window which was broken, not wilfully, hut- in consequence of slight negligence on the part of an experienced motor driver. lie pointed- out, I understand, that the company, by so doing, was injuring the good relationship which exists between the occupiers of a building and the owner ot the same, particularly when he understood the insurance existed for the benefit of both owner and tenant. Mr Bedford approaohed the secretary of the trust on Thursday", July 20, with reference to the matter, and the secretary, no doubt, indicated that however unreasonable the insurance company’s action might be, lie could do nothing, as the insurance company had a legal, .rigbl.to. proceed. I feel

sure that at this Interview, and right up to the time the aotlon was heaid oil Tuesday, July 25, the 'secretary ot the trust did not know that the act on by the insurance oorhpany was bet g taken "In the names of the trustees, he no doubt assuming the action was being instituted In the name of the Insurance company. .. .... The misapprehension has theiefor, arisen by the secretary writing and disolaiming knowledge that the action as? that the secretary’s letter indicated that he had no knowledge at all of tne a °l°trust this explanation will assist both parties to a true conception of this unfortunate misunderstanding.— 1 am ’ etC ” W. J. KING. Hamilton, July 31, 1933. We have received a lengthy letter from Mr J. Batters quoting instructions allegedly Issued to tho gangers of relief workers with the object of expediting work on relief. Mr Batters contends that the cause of tie laxitv amongst workers is insufficiency of food. Mr Balters makes a nunibei of other statements Impugning boroug.i officers and others. These lie should lay before the council.