FARM NOTES.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 297, 18 July 1929, Page 7

FARM NOTES.

v LECTURE REFUSED. TERMS NOT ACCEPTED. Advertising a Company. Farmers’ Union Discussion. A lengthy discussion followed the reading of a minute relating to the attempt of the Morrinsville branch of “the New Zealand Farmers’ Union to .secure an address by Dr. Annett, the “well-known authority on grassland manuring, at Saturday evening’s meeting of the branch. The matter was considered at the last meeting, when, while the branch expressed itself as keenly desirous of securing an address, a resolution was passed refusing the offer owing to the stipulation that the branch should advertise that the lecture was given under the auspices of a certain manure

The secretary read a letter from the company in which a protest at the attitude the branch had taken up was lodged. Mr. J. M. Allen said the minute was not in accord with the resolution he had moved and that had been, carried. In his motion he had suggested that the company be thanked for the work it had done in the district, whereas in the resolution it was stated that the branch thanked Dr. Annett for his work in the interests of the industry.

Several members stated that they considered the resolution was as recorded in the minutes. Mr. Topham said Mr. Allen had meant that the I company be thanked, but the motion j was carried otherwise. I Mr. P. S. Philpott considered that j the union was taking a very narrow j view, and he was of the opinion that the minute should be rescinded. I Manures were a question that were ■ of primary importance to farmers, } and such an opportunity to secure j the advice of an expert should have 1 been grasped. Had the speaker been at the meeting he would have voted against the resolution. The president, Mr. G. Pirrit, said Mr. Philpott did not understand the .position. When Dr. Annett was invited to address the branch, members were of the opinion that the doctor j was an independent man. It was learned subsequently that Dr. Annett was employed by the company in question. Conditions were imposed by the company which stipulated full publicity of the fnct that the lecture was by courtesy of the company. The j speaker held strop glv to the opinion J that the union sherdd not, be used for advertis-ng purposes by any firm. He doubted whether the branch had the right to accept the offer. M~. M. E. Barrowclough said he had been disgusted at the attitude of the branch. He thought the conclusion that the lecture was an advertising stunt was erroneous. Dr. , Annett would not, the speaker felt sure, come to the meeting to boost his company’s manure. The lecture would touch on every aspect of manuring.

' In a letter to Mr. Barrowclough Dr. Annett said he was perfectly j willing to give an address in spite I of the fact that he had been invited j to give similar addresses all over the j North Island. He had spent a good j deal of his own time and money in attempting to help New Zealand agriculture in getting practical acquaintance with local problems in order that his scientific attainments might be better utilised than by going to a research station and offering advice without local practical know’edge. Farmers oil over the country had been appreciative of what he was attempting. Recently his comoan v had made arrangements whereby his work could have fuller scope. TTnder his arrangement with the company he was free to experiment

> with any manure, whether New Zealand, British, German, etc., and the company understood that he intended to give absolutely-unbiassed advice. Because of the help he was receiving at the company’s hands he agreed that any Ic-cLuies snouia oe given under me company’s auspices.

The writer said ha had been surprised to read with what prominence his name was brought forward in the account of the meeting. It might j seem a small matter to the members, j but the least he could say was that I it was extremely discourteous to him for the branch to give such prominence to the matter in the paper. “It is stated firstly that I am employed by the company.” Dr. continued. “My arrangement is a special one ana I am not an employee of the company in the ordinary j sense, since I am a free agent. The company deserves credit for aiding my work. It is also implied that the branch took exception to paying my out-of-pocket expenses. Until the last two or three lectures I paid all my own expenses, but this meant that on long trips such as I have taken to North Auckland I should be considerably out of pocket and I could not afford it. No other branch has objected to this payment, and as a matter of fact there are no expenses worth charging for visits so near as Morrinsville. The matter of this charge was mentioned by the company as a matter of routine. I bear no malice,” the doctor concluded. “ but feel just a little hurt.” Mr. Pirrit said the statement that the'branch had turned down Dr. Annett’s offer was incorrect. The union had asked the doctor to suggest a date, and this date had never been forthcoming. The first notification j had come from the company. A ' representative of the company had said there was little use a lecture being given if the company derived no benefit therefrom.

Mr. Faulkner said he had every sympathy with Dr. Annett. The company had perhaps acted a little tactlessly. Mr. Leeson said it had not been known at first that the doctor was under contract to the company. The information given to the union conveyed the impression that Dr. Annett was employed by the company. The speaker failed to see why the branch should be used for advertising purposes.

Mr. Barrowclough said the company paid Dr. Annett nothing, and therefore he was not an employee. The company had merely assisted him in his experiments. The speaker proceeded to enlarge upon the benefits of the company. Mr. Leeson : That is beside the point. Mr. Barrowclough said it was only right that it should be known that the doctor was not an employee. Mr. Leeson said it was extraordinary that if a man of the doctor’s scientific knowledge could not give an address without the assent of the company that the impression should not be given that he was an employee. Mr. Pirrit said he was very keen to hear the doctor, but his opinion

was still that the branch should not be used to advertise the company. A small committee of farmers could be set up to invite the doctor along. Mr. C. Saxon : Why should the Morrinsville union set itself against the doctor? Other unions have him along. Mr. Allen said the misunderstanding had arisen through his motion being wrongly recorded. The attitude of the company seemed highhanded, and he was still of the opinion that the branch should not advertise any brand of manure. Mr. Pirrit said he was very sorry if Dr. Annett’s feelings had been hurt. Mr. Leeson moved that a letter be sent to Dr. Annett expressing regret that the proceedings of the last meeting should have caused him any hurt. The motion was carried.

The M’Murray group said the buried village was uncovered on L-e Cninadian River above Clemons, Texas, and perhaps was over 1000 years old. Dr. W. C. Holden, history professor and head of the party, said he believed it belonged to the prepueblo culture of western Indian civilisation.

The party reported it found bones which crumbled into dust upon contact with the air, a large pot believed to antedate the celebrated white and black era of pueblo culture, and thousands of finely chipped flint artifacts.

Only one, of probably 200 inhabitations high on a cliff, was explored.

Dr. Holden said one of the curious and important angles of the discovery was that horizontal masonry was found super-imposed on the more ancient slab structures, which indicated the party had come upon the decay of one culture and the beginning of another. Based upon the premises laid down by the noted archaeologist. Dr. Alfred Vincent Kidder, the find" appeared to belong to the pre-pueblo marking the first known extension of that cul.ure in Texas.