THE FRUIT INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 32, 6 August 1936, Page 8

THE FRUIT INDUSTRY

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Your correspondent "Taxpayer" is not very fair to the fruit: grower in his criticism. To assert that after sixteen years twenty instructors are still necessary , is in itself-entirely misleading and contrary to fact. These gentlemen are ordinary inspectors who, in addition to performing their various duties, offer any helpful suggestions to the growers, and tl can assure "Taxpayer" that their appointments are fully justified.

It is obvious that your correspondent is not a fruit, grower nor does he appear to hold much sympathy for that individual, otherwise he would certainly have refrained from using the word independence, which he considered the fruit grower should show before approaching the Government(for assistance. I would like to see how independent "Taxpayer" would 'be after paying all expenses necessary for production on an orchard today, working on the present prices received. The statement of Mr. Stephens, chairman ,of the-Fruit Board, that only 1 per cent, has been charged to the taxpayer on behalf of the fruit industry in past years should be sufficient reply to this criticism, but I note your correspondent doubts Mr. Stephens's remarks; however, it must be remembered that the figures given are official ones, so there is no justification for disbelieving them. Twill not, Sir, ask you for much more of your valuable space, however tempted I feel to supply other reasons in support of my previous remarks; but T would state quite definitely that $he fruit grower's lot is a very hard one, that he takes more seasonal risks, bears heavier expenses in proportion to his holding, and toils harder than any other farmer in the country. I would finally appeal to the Government that if the guaranteed-price scheme is impossible of immediate application, some other form of subsidy be granted to those attempting against almost insuperable burdens to carry on.—l am, etc., ■ . vocrs.