RETRENCHMENI AT MOUMAHAKI.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 846, 18 June 1910, Page 8

RETRENCHMENI AT MOUMAHAKI.

Mlt. GILIjANDERS REPLIES TO . , THE MINISTER. £To tlie Editor.) Sir, —In The Dominion of tho loth instant, the iion. tho Minister for Agriculture replies to my letter to tho ■ "■Star" of tho 31st. ultimo. Tho Minister siiysj "I have evidently overlooked the fact that on March 31, 1909, certain conversations took placo . between me and the Director of Experiment Farms." I havo to'inform tho honourable gentleman that I have not overlooked the fß.et that the. conversation he refers to took placo, and I would ask him and tho director to kindly point out what curtailments • were authorised during tho conversation. About tho only .curtailment discussed was the, proposed xerductious in tho nursery, which, was afterwards agreed to, but before the work could be commenced the authority was withdrawn. ' 1 The Minister further goes on to say "that on April 7 I got notice that tho expenditure had to be curtailed, and on April 13 I was advised that the allocation -'available would bo a certain sum.*.' Lei me again say that 1 frankly admit' having received tho notices mentioned, and that on more than one occasion I pointed out that, it was impossible to carry on the work of tho farm as at that time constituted on the sum mentioned. In the face of my statement to this effect, the Minister, persists in saying that I bad authority to reduce the expenditure to. ine£t the allocation, which practically .meant, a reduction of two-Stths of .the ordinary cost of ..running tho farm. The inductions 1 • have already referred to as proposed in the ,:ursery would have made a savins of something like £150. Now, if authority to curtail to effect this petty amount w"as first given and then withdrawn, was it likely that I was to take it upon myself to mako reductions -which entailed from £1500 to £1800 without any definition whatever ,as to What was to bo reduced. . Further, on at least two occasions the Minister has said "that.l took no steps to reduce." This is an unfair statement, and not in accordance with fact. From April to November no expenditure. whatever was undertaken that could bo avoided, that is, outside continuing the ordinary work on the farm, which 1 had no authority to stop. Tip to November 30 the expenditure was fully £500 less than it was at that time tho previous year. Now, if I took no siieps to reduce, would tho Minister kindly explain- how the saving of this amount came about. ' The fact is,_ the whole situation was largely a'political shuffle of tlie cards, and turned out to be so; not being sure how the wind,was to blow, the Minister wished to keep me between himself and tho blast. Now,-' Mr. Editor, I will further ask your indulgence to place the. matter more fully before you. Suppose 1 had been running the farm for' a business man or a board of directors, and either had asked me to reduco the expenditure two-fifths.. Under such- conditions I think it is only reasonable to surmise that either body -would have given me Eome indication as to how it was proposed I was to bring about the reduction. Yet the Hon. the Minister, who, by tho way, poses as a man, says I should have carried out curtailments without any directions from linn as'toi'what-1 was to curtail. The Minister's attitude', in :this respect.;is remarkable I Some time previous I received notice from the same quarter to 'the effect that'l was not to spend more than £10 without Departmental authority, and. yet ho says, I should have brought about a saving of £1800 without even the least outline of fyow I was to do it. Truly, tho Minister' wishes the public to bcliovn that when at Moumahaki I was empowered with unlimited authority, whereas tho reverso is the true position.—-I am, etc., F. GILLANDEKS. , . Hawera, June 17, 1910.