CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 November 1915, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

DAIRY 'FACTORY WORKERS AND "REJECTS." To the Editor. Sir,—"Factory .Manager" does not like anyone plunging into print to gainsay his little schemes, and seems to think he ought to air his views in public and nobody to say a word. I may have exaggerated a little when I said that nine out of ten men rejected as unfit for service by the military authorities would come under the same heading in regard to working in a elieese factory, and 1 may not have. The three rejects that "Factory Manager" lias under him may be three out of thirty, and if he were to find the other twenty-seven perhaps he would also find that they would not stand the work of cheese-making. With regard to his wagers, I may state that the season is not yet far enough advanced from the rigors of the past winter to talk about putting up "fivers," and as I am a "lactis extractor" by profession, I should not be expected to be able to pick the defects of "Factory Manager's'' rejects, and also could not go on any lengthy journey to meet his "white hope," but if "Factory Manager" could spare the time to bring "John Jackson" to Okato (where I live), I will be only too pleased to don the "niits" with lii,ni in a twelve-round contest, provided he is not more than half a stone above my weight, which is ten stone ten pounds stripped. You may,' Sir, give my name and address to "Faetorv Manager" if he accepts my proposal. This note spells ''finis" for me as regards tliis discussion, and I will conclude with every good wish for the success of "Factory Manager's" scheme and hope he will get the three rejects lie wants. Why not four? lie could instal the other as his private secretarv.—l am. etc., READER. Okato, October 30.

OTHER MATTERS. To the Editor. Sir, —I invited Mr. Wright to name some of the "every commander" list he seemed to know of who Agree that for "wet and cold" men must have alcohol. He names none; but he falls back on logic. Here is his syllogism:—First premise, rum was given to the soldiers at the front; second premise, Lord Kitchener is Minister for War; conclusion, T.ord Kitchener ordered rum and believes in it. Now, when I studied logic a little hit there was something about the equal distribution of the premises whiih would upset Mr. Wright's conclusion. But I do not want to attempt to attempt to chop logic with anyone; I only want to know the truth about any matter (rum, just now) and to let other people know too. We do not know how far Lord Kitchener is responsible for the rum-rations. It seems to quite contradict his previous praeticf. That it is a case of army routine and custom in which he did not interfere is the more reasonable conclusion. But Mr. Wright's new question is: "Is Kitchener right?" If he ordered the rum ration he was wrong, even though only I say it; but I have yet to learn that he did order it or approve of it. While we are waiting for Mr. Wright's "every commander" list, I would just quote another very prominent man, Lord Charles Beresford. When in active service as an ad,miral, he wrote to General Barron and said: "I do not believe that alcohol in any form ever lias or ever will do anyone any good. lam now sixty years old. and since I have entirely given up winespirits and beer I find I pan do as much work or more, physically and mentally, than I could do when I was thirty. I am always well: always cheery, laugh at the 'downs' of life equally with the 'ups'; and always feel fit and in condition." For lack of "commanders" Mr. Wright is funny and imaginative; in neither of those directions will I attempt. to follow him. J respect his private opinion that alcoholic—intoxicating—drinks are good for men, at least when wet and cold; but it is not proved —in fact, all the proof is the other way, if my reading and study and observation count for anything. The real point at issue is brought very narrow when we remember that even the defenders and advocates of strong drink must admit that much harm in various ways results from drinking; and therefore it lies with them to show that any, or commensurate, benefits follow the internal use of alcohol.—l am, etc., GEO. H. MAUNDER. New Plymouth, Nov. 1. ABOUT THE POTATO.

To The Editor. Sir.—ln a paragraph headed "Farm and Dairy" in your Saturday's issue there is an interesting paragraph about the potato, which to me at least is interesting, because of the number of inaccuracies it contains;' and I am writing this note lest any pupil of the Taranaki schools should see and believe it. In the first place it certainly has passed its three score years and ten of cultivation in Europe, even as Man counts; but when one considers that a plant is a very much quicker grower than Man, its ''three score years and ten" will be a much shorter period than seventy years. Nevertheless to assert that during all this long period it has been propagated by tubers only, is simply rubbish. T very much question if there is a remnant of any of the plants that were grown from tubers, say 40 years ago, remaining now. Certainly the varieties that are most extensively grown to-day are not more than fifteen years old, and a variety that I know to havo been r genera] favorite in Taranaki fifteen years ago, viz. "Circular Head" I cannot find a trace of to-day. Further, to give out that certain French scientists have ''recenOy" discovered that "tubers of a useful size can he grown from seed" makes one smile. I wonder where the 53 varieties shown in the Moumahaki exhibit at the Winter Show came from if tubers were not grown from seed many years ago. Tf the French scientists stated that

the tubers are on the "roots" ot" the plants, they are not scientists, and one need to challenge their other assertion that "they are caused by a parasite which enters the roots, and setting up irrritation, causes the swellings that become tubers." I can quite imagine that the promulgator of this theory of the parasitic origin of the potato tuber wouldn't know what part of the plant the tuber is. Mind you, sir. I am not denying that the tuber is produced in this way, hut 1 should be prepared to argue with a scientist that it is produced in a far more natural way, and for a very specific reason, and I should certainly require more than the assertion of a scientist who called them "roots" before I changed my present opinion for his. The one really g'ood thing in the paragraph is the information that age lias the effect of reducing vitality, and exposing th« plant that is continually propagated by tubetß, to the

lavages of disease. Many potato growera recognise the value of u change of what they erroneously call "seed;" it remains now for them to recognise the valne of new varieties. The newer the variety, the less liable to disease, though I very much question if any variety can lie guaranteed to lie blight proof.—l am, etc., JOHN GILLIES ELLIS, Schools Instructor. November 1, 1915.