FRUIT CONTROL

Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1924, Page 1

FRUIT CONTROL

\V E 1.1.1 A'(IT'D \. Sepl. IT. Eight |.‘litioiis wine presented to the House tn-day from Nelson and tit...... < 'uni . 'il vi.itioil Lv Ml!) fruit

growers .objecting to the fruit Control Rill. The petitions were referred to tlm April nil ill'al anil Pastoral ( oluinit t'-e. will'll i- t'diir: evidence on ill" Bill iln . week. The pd il uuu-i s ibahire that the coltI rill. I libel of export or the local market, is not in glowers' interests. Dominion control is not possible, as the eoiniiiodily is peri-liable. I lie prtncijde does not (end lo ellieieiuy. and is likely to prejudiee th'' rights ol mortgagees. who look to the growers lo make the best of their mis hards nod 1 he sale of I roil . It is also stated, in regard to the maximum tax mi the export of I nut which the Rill specifics, that, on a basis of |;ii) trees to the acre and the production ol three rases per tree, a tax of 3d per ease means £! 17s (id per acre, which is tin imposition the industry i-iiiiiiot stand. "The Bill." adds tlie petitioners, “is iin sit tempi to i-rieit" a monopoly to the detriment of the whole i oinmunitv ami your pel itiuners. thei elure. ask that it he made inoperative in the provinces of Nelson am! Dlapw."