FRUIT CONTROL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 6 August 1929, Page 5

FRUIT CONTROL

(To the Editor)

Sir. —The suggestion that ''Profits for" the Producers" makes, that any firm offered or would offer a high price to some of the fruitgrowers with the object of breaking up control, is absurd, as any. v firm would not risk thousands of pounds--.; on the chance of them succeeding. . 1,.; know that prospective buyers, last year---stood to lose at least £7OOO if .theu\6f- : " fers to others on the same lines made to me, had been allowed, to "be AC- incepted. The whole of this was lost to tho Nelson district. _They..liave"' much better ways of breaking- control than by risking "their .money., '.as denced'by the Dairy and Kauri Givni" Controls. .--■■■;:.: "t:

It is hard to see why buyers'should' want to destroy control, as what better terms could they get, than the Control Board gives them with the growers fruit, than for the buyers to be able to get it at their own prices and at the full risk of the individual grower. Whether the fruit arrives in good order or not, the buyer under Control Board methods takes no risk whatever.

Would "P.F.T.P." suggest that the ';; offer the Control Board received and ac- '■'• ce2)ted from Hamburg was made with .. the object of breaking control? If not, why cannot buyers make offers to grow- *. ers without being accused of doing so for « sinister motives if As one that left the j'. Control Board at the first opportunity, hj I absolutely deny the suggestion that I M wqs under any compulsion. I used my '' own free will in the matter. "P.F.T.P." in saying that if compulsion was relaxed the control could not hold its supporters, is the strongest indictment ! against its methods of trading, as they •- are in the unique position of having no !; opposition for four years, and all the •'• New Zealand brokers would have' to"-' pick up all their business from the start" again. We only have to see- the failures of several compulsory controls, that have had to revert to individual trading, after losing huge sums of money for the' producers, to know that something is wrong with the principle. I might instance the dairy compulsory "control, the kauri gum control the hop control (not compulsory) that lias had'the effect of bringing into being combinations of buyers to combat them. Then we have the example of the Fruit Shipping Control of South Africa, four years ago, when they got into the same state as the shipping was this year in New Zealand. In South Africa there were tens of thou- .. sands of cases lying rotting on' the ' wharves. This led to a great breaking ■ - away from the united control, of fruit shipping in South Africa. No one can ~ say that it is just and equitable that I- - should have to carry unenterprising growers to the extent* of £SOO per vear as "P.F.T.P." says it is. ■.

"P.F.T.P." is quite wrong in saying that it is impossible to carry on -cooperative ventures without compulsion. . I need only quote the very large'cooperative companies, in America dealing with fruit. It is not compulsion but service that holds them together. C'ompul- . sion is only a'relic of the war time', and.-, that time has passed. As to the threat - that I will incur the hearty ill will of the Nelson growers, that is quite immaterial to me, as I only express what'J know to be the truth about the matter. As •P.F.T.I'." gives me advice,. I will' - venture to give him some; that is,-be more charitable and do not always impute ill motives to all those that differ from him. For myself I will, not give first place to anyone in my earnest- desire for the good of the industry. lam etc., BRITISH FAIR PLAY. Stoke, sth August.