FORESTRY MATTERS.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 January 1921, Page 1

FORESTRY MATTERS.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I regret that my absence from the Coast deprived me of the opportunity of an earlier perusal of your Leader on “Forestry Matter” as contained in the ‘Guardian’ of the 11th. inst. Incidentally, my absence prevented a more prompt reply to the disparaging remarks that "ore directed towards the writer of the ‘digest.’ He surely cannot be held responsible for any of the de-

tails of the Forestry Report or for nnv of the features in the proposed forestry policy to which you take objection. Your complaint that the ‘Grey River Argus’ is favoured in being supplied with first-hand information may or may not be justified, but your statement that it is your only complaint is much more wide of the mark than is any of the matter published in Hie digest referred to. It is questionable whether printed matter issued specific-

ally to the members of an incorporated body may he said to be published

and whether in such case it is good form for one outsider to make use of it. Your complaint that Captain Ellis’s report ‘has been seen by the Dominion Federation of Sawmillcrs’ might lead your renders to assume that an unwarranted privilege had lieen taken, hi justice to the Federation it should be explained Hint a copy of the report was submitted by the direction of Sir o rand's Hell (Commissioner of Forestry) for the consideration of the Federation's executive. The digest was prepared as a report for the benefit of members of the Federation; and, to say the least, however much the ‘Guardian’ may disagree with any action that may bo taken by the Forestry Department it is not ‘cricket’ to take the loan of that digest for the purpose of indulging ;n uncalled for remarks about the person who prepared it and who is in no way responsible for the matter contained in tlie original report.

When discussing the jeopardy of ‘the miller with his Crown grant and license’ you say:—‘Equally so the freeholder—hut the digest has tried to stem this obvious equality and place the freeholder on a plane above the grantee.’ This statement is not strictly in accordance with truth, because the digest merely condenses the matter contained in Captain Ellis’s report, and as showing that it is a fair digest it is well to record that a proof was submitted to the author of the report and approved, before the digest was printed. ! I join with you in being ‘concerned for the small miller which has his Crown grant,’ as you put it, but in the matter of any action beneficial to the industry as a whole you are left deplorably in the rear. Incidentally, those interests with which I am associated —and they are chiefly other than freehold—have also benefited.

Your reference to page of tlio digest is quite misleading. The j*ar»l- - of the digest reads:—‘Where ?e----ferenee is made in the report to “all timber cessions past present and future” it is not intended to apply to freehold,’ This was an answer to n query that was noted by one of the executive when the report was being read, hollowing your reference to this paragraph you say:—The millers generally, whether federated or not, will want to know why tlijs is thus and fish is made of one and flesh of another. I leave your readers to judge where the fishy part comes in. Let me assure you, MiEditor, that you are quite wrong in supposing that the sawniillers are ‘so apathetic over the whole matter/ In proof thereof let me give you a little •first hand information.’

The Dominion Federation, which represents nearly 90% of the sawmilling interests in the Dominion is now holding a meeting in this city dealing with this question. At their invitation Sir Francis Hell has promised to attend their meeting and deliver a statement defining the Government policy in respect to forestry. It is possible that another injustice will thus have been done to the “Guardian” but it is just possible that the sawniillers may not be so' very wide of the mark in the attitude they are adopting towards the Forestry question.

I In respect to the local bodies (and I herein wo seem to be getting nearer to the seat of trouble) it is not ‘clear that they will lose thousands of pounds of f revenue if the forestry policy continues iu its present trend’ as stated by you. If it were not for your well known love of truth and your reputed high sense of all that is fair and gentlemanly one might have thought that some petty jealously against your ‘Morning Contemporary’, or some ill-judged prejudice against the department whose policy you yourself admit has not been made public, had taken command and spilt venom amongst the planter’s ink.

For the benefit of any of your readers who may wish to read the digest I am sending two copies to the Librarian, Hokitika Library.—Yours etc., TV. J. BUTLER. Wellington, 19th. January, 1921.

' [There may lie an interesting coincidjenee in the fact that neither Mr Butter nor the “Grey River Argus” replied j earlier to our remarks of tho 11th. ' inst. [Vrhaps it was a case of ‘.,‘the absent mind”! That by the way. Mr j Butler’s reply, however, is completely j unsatisfactory, for the reason that there •is nothing very tangible in it. The ! personalities may go. They do not * count in argument, and they are beside i the case as facts. The paper Lx>k up a 'certain posiiion the necessity for which in the public interests appeared to be ' worthy of championing because, of the ! -let down” of tho sawmillcrs in general and the local bodies bv the attitude adopted by the writer of the digest. The local body interests are, of course, those of the general public, and consequently of even more importance than the saw- '■ millers in the final weighing of the interests. This paper, nevertheless, is not swayed by any personal animus but with the sole desire to discharge a public duty. That, task is not always pleasant, but it appeared to be necessary in the present ease, and from what we have heard since in comment on the article in question the intervention on ' ou.r part seemed to be both timely and appropriate in the interests of all concerned, and with those chiefly concerned seems to be very much appreciated. While Mr Butler does not raise any fresh issues, beyond tho personal comment which will he ignored, yet there are various phases of the subject, still to be discussed, and wo shall do so ns opportunity serves, believing that this subject touches the jjeneral public far more closely than they realise at present. Tho digest has assisted to awaken interest in the matter, and to that extent its publication has been of value. Wo hope to further discuss forestry matters as the policy, and its application is being manifested.—Ed. G • I