FRUITGROWERS’ BUSINESS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 26 July 1929, Page 8

FRUITGROWERS’ BUSINESS

(To t-ho Editor) Sir, —In your iksiic of Ibth -Inly an ,n l icic appeared oil boluilf of t he, '‘Nineteen Twenty-eight Committee," purporting In deal with the question of ■'control" as applied .to primary- industries in general, and the fruit industry in particular, jit is an unp.crtfhence for this organisation to interfere .with the fruitgrowers’ .conduct of their pwn business, for it j.s well known 1 to gi'btvcrs of (his province that there arc not more of their own number than may lie counted on the fingers of one hand that lufvoanv sympathy ..with .the -objects of tins Committee, and there is more tliaTi a suspicion that these few have an ulterior motive in supporting this mischief making coterie. The difficulties surrounding the export arrangements' of fruit this year and in particular tlie estimating and allocation of shipping space requirements, are well known and understood by the export growers,' and were due almost entirely to the vagaries of the weather. If any blame is to be carried, the growers recognise that they-.- - must -themselves shoulder the bigger share. ■ If this precious "Nineteen* twenty-;. Eight Committee” are so concerned foltile poor public, who stand in such danger of being victimised, let them turn their attention to. some of the commercial combines arid- ...trusts', that keep piling up costs against the public; hero they will find a much wider"scope* for their activities than by meddling, in the affairs of the hum ou tlie land who is battling to make a'-living.—T am, etc., • EXPOET FEUITGROWEit. Tasman, '24th July 7. \ iTo the Editor) Sir, —With your- permission I - would like to reply to vour correspondent "Bri. tisli Fair Play.’’ First of all 1 would advise him to discontinue writing to tlu<daily press under this iiom de plume, as most fruitgrowers, by this time, are aware of his identity. May I suggest to him that he attend the Export- Conference in Nelson oh the 16th August and explain to the assembled fruitgrowers just lmw the Control Board was the means of his losing £SOO. Perhaps other growers, myself included, have; npt enough business ability, to be aware of similar lossts. On the other hand,- perhaps our complacency is devivecL from the fact we are not’ all' prospective brokers’ agents, lie slates that control of a minority is unfair, hut what about control of, the unwilling whole by vested interests? WeMiavo another product of the soil, grown in Nelson, which is largely used in the making of a beverage which is as British as fair play. I would ask him. is not this article absolutely controlled by one mercantile firm? And if so, does he consider that such is an example of fair play as applied by the advocates- of ‘ freedom of trade?”' Ninety-five per cent, of the growers share the,opinion 1 expressed. The remaining five, percent, have, 'what is commonly called, “an axe to grind.”— I am, etc., PROFITS FOE,*THE PRODUCERS.; Ecdwuud y Valley, 23rd .July.