CORRESPONDENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2173, 24 April 1908, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Correspondence on public runttora is welcomed nt nil times, but it must bo distinctly understood tluit this imirual is in no way associated with the opinions of its corrospoudcnts.] NOXIOUS WEEDS. [To tub Emxon.J Sir, —Referring to your lender and article under the heading, “Noxious Weeds,” I would like to make n low remarks. First, I would respectfully point out that whero a case is considered of sullicient public interest to lie reported at all, a verbatim report ought to be given, and thereby many vexatious mistakes would be avoided. In your leader you state my place of abode is To Knralui, when it should have been Ormond. .But that is nothing much. Next comes the astonishing statement that having been charged with tailing to keep my land clear from a species of blackberry, I did not deny that I had not made any irttempt to clear the plant away; “indeed he admitted ho had cultivated it.” Now, sir, how on earth could I admit cultivating a plant which I contended did not exist? Indeed, this was my solo defence, at least the only defence we thought necessary on that day to win tlie ease. Going on to refer to the unenviable reputation the blackberry has gained with some landowners, owing to the extraordinary manner in which it spreads and completely monopolises land upon which it onco gains a fair hold, 1 would point cut- that the Lawton berry does not do this at all. With very littlo care it can bo kept down. The hedge on my placo has been in existence about sixteen years or more, and the fact that thero are no plants on any of the adjoining properties, even though they have been cultivated* which makes the conditions easier for the berry seed, goes a long way to substantiate what I say. I know of another hedge of improved blackberries at Tc Karaka, and on diligent inquiry I cannot hear of any spreading lrom that source. I also know of another patch in the Motu, which, although it lias been in existence many years, can only boast of one solitary bush, about a hundred yards olf, as the result of many years disseminating of the seed. The cost to me for keeping my land clear of anv young plants that may come up is about 10s per annum, and against this wo kept tally of over loOOlbs of fruit picked in one season, which this year I have readily sold at 4d per lb wholesale, and I have a number of orders still unfulfilled. I know of one run myself in Hawke’s Bav that is practically ruined by the wild blackberry, and I can assure you, sir, that if 1 bad any oi it on niy place I would be even more zealous than Mr. lloss or the Department in gotting rid of it. The common blackberry is spreading all the year round, trailing along the ground, rooting at the tips and joints, and from these new roots throwing out fresh shoots in all directions, and very soon covering and practically taking charge of the whole surface where it is unchecked. The Lawton berry practically only spreads from what little seeds are carried by birds—it cannot be carried by the wind—and as the berries contain very few seeds, compared with the common berry, and those seeds are always carried when the fruit is at its best and the seeds immature, very few of theni ever germinate. In my case the birds don’t get much chance, as the fruit is gathered almost every day during the season . Turning next to the article under the heading “Noxious Weeds,” you say here that defendant contended that Rubus Lawtoniana was one of Burbank’s varieties. Now, sir, this is a mis-statement pure and simple, and as made to appear to apply to the letter I had written to Mr. Kirk puts quite an erroneous aspect on the whole case. As a matter of fact, in our evidence the Lawtoniana was given as the production of a Mr Lawton, one of Mr. Burbank’s prototypes, and surely the name implies this. The letter I wrote to Mr. Kirk had nothing to do with the case at all, and was written about a month before I received the summons, and an answer was only asked for, as Mr. Clifton mentions in his letter, to guide me in ordering some of Burbank’s latest improved blackberries from America. My reason for saying I. only received the answer too late to produce as evidence was in consequence of Mr. Nolan contending for the prosecution that all blackberries, whether hybrid or not, came under the Act. Mr. Clifton says that Mr. Binnie did not send, in a specimen of blackberry! Well, all I can say that if I had had a specimen of the blackberries I was writing about there would have been no need to send to America. I may further say here that I mentioned to Mr. Miller, the local chief /that I was sending for some of Burbank’s latest, and he told me I would not be allowed to grow them, liis logic, in the matter being illustrated by the remark that “a crossbred sheep is still a sheep.” In conclusion, with all due deference to Mr .Clifton, I think I can produce authorities to substantiate Mr. Barton’s decision, and if it was the intention of the 'framer of the Act to include all improved varieties or sports as noxious weeds, then the wording in the schedule will have to be altered* and before such alteration takes place we, the blackberry growers, will be afforded an opportunity to set forth our side of the question. Apologising for trespassing so much on your valuable space.—l am. etc., HUGH BINNIE. Ormond, April 22. . THE MAYORALTY, [To tiie Editor.] Sir,—l have been awaiting with considerable interest a possible response to my letter in your columns of the 20th inst., as Mr W. D. Lysnar’s supporters had been contending that there were many unjust insinuations current against him. I also gath.or that some people considered my letter unduly strong against the candidate. I certainly feel strongly that any candidate offering himself for the highest office in tlio power of the town to bestow, should subject himself to the most searching scrutiny, but while doing so, I am anxious that nothing shall be.unfairly alleged against him, and that every opportunity may be given to any candidate to prove his honesty and worthiness for the position. Possibly I may have a bias from having perused portions of the judgments and evidence in the cases of Dunlop v. Lysnar, Heirare Potae and Porihi Tutekolii’s will, and so that my reasons may be clear to the public I will, if Mr. Lysnar will indemnify me against any action for libel,, publish in your columns without comment such extracts of the judgments or evidence as have impressed mo most, at the same time advising Air. Lysnar of the date of publication so that he may likewise publish without comment such extracts as he may consider desirable. My reason for doing this is, because, as you are awaro, it may be considered libellous to publish extracts, without the whole of the judgments and evidence, and space would not permit me to do this, as the judgments are voluminous. I feel assured that Mr Lysnar,conscious of his own rectitude, will bo only too happy to accept my challenge, so that the public may judge if my opposition to him is fair and justifiable or not. "While there are many points in last night’s meeting which might be considered with profit, there is one which perhaps space will permit me to refer to. Mr. Rees emphasised with considerable vehemence that it was not necessary for the burgesses to take a candidate’s character into consideration, but many burgesses differ from him in thinking that personal character ds an element of the first importance.—l am. etc., W. LISSANT CLAYTON. Gisborne, April 23rd.