COMPULSORY CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 29 July 1929, Page 2

COMPULSORY CONTROL

(To the Editor) Sir, —In reply to “Profits for the Producers,” instead of waiting lor the meeting of the export conference to explain the way 1 lost £SOO last year, I would like to give it at once, as anything said at that meeting may be suppressed as at the last Federation meeting. After me getting an offer of Os 9d per case 1.0. b. for 3000 cases of apples, which the Control Board would not allow me to accept, they returned an average of 5s 3d per case i'.o.b. If “P.I'.J’.P.” will work out this little sum lie will find the answer is a, little over ,£.‘500. With reference to the mercantile firm that he suvs controls some beverage, if it is so good an investment, why does not “P.F.T.P.” start in opposition. There is no law against iliiin doing so as there is against me starting in opposition to the Compulsory Jfruit Control Board, or making the most that 1 can out of the apples that I grow. “P.l<\T.P.” should not throw stones at the beverage trust, as lie is upholding the much more pernicious fruit trust that is supported and protected by Act of Parliament, which the other is not. lie claims that 95 per cent, of the growers support control; if tiiis is so whv not do away with compulsory control and inaugurate a genuine co-operative concern, and thus gel rid of all criticism, and the certainty that I here must, he an. alteration of the Control Act. When an industry invokes lliiv aid of Parliament for the control of that industry*. they must expect that those opposed to, or are hit in any way will try and invoke the same power to get their ends, and that, will always make for the instability, and uncertainty of continuity, as men and parties are always changing. T am, etc., BRITISH FAFR. PLAY.