CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 December 1926, Page 16

CORRESPONDENCE.

MR. WINKS AND THE CONTROL BOARD. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr. Forsyth’s defence of his colleague is what might have been expected from him, and is appreciated. He calls it unfair “criticism." In what sense it is unfair? Air. Forsyth surely dees not subscribe to the doctrine that it is perfectly fair and right for members of the board and their supporters to criticise and condemn a Government nominee as lias been done in the Waikato but unfair and wrong for another section of producers to adopt a similar course with another Government nominee. Messrs. Paterson and Winks are both Government nominees on the board and both are paid by the producers, not by the Government. So far as I know no one has questioned the ability or Mr. Winks, or his caution, solidity and moderation; certainly I have not. Producers can readily realise (even if Mr. Forsyth does not) that even if Mr. Winks is possessed of experience and all the commercial ability it is possible to pack into one human being, he is no asset to them if he has not the moral courage to back up his opinions and abilities not only in face of the board, but, if need be, in the face of the country. The very foundation of Government appointments of this nature is the inclusion in the body concerned of some able and fair-minded man, who, holding his appointment apart from the rivalry of contending factions, may from his independent position be free to give and exercise his judgment impartially. Docs Mr. Winks fulfil these conditions? On November 2 at Stratford he declined to speak in case he “might say something he might have to withdraw,” and now he is “content to leave the issues to the Minister of Agriculture.” The %nly inference we can draw from these statements is that Mr. Winks does not feel at liberty to exercise his own judgment, but feels bound by some occult force (we know not what) to act and vote as instructed by the Government or Minister of Agriculture. Such being the case, all that is needed is an item of humanity who will record votes on behalf of the Government, and, as I stated the other day, one of the unemployed would serve equally as well, and the producers would have the satisfaction of knowing that part of their hardearned cash was providing for one needy person at least. Mr. Forsyth's contention that “the board is in no way responsible for the low advances,” and his attempt to saddle the merchants with the sole responsibility. will not hold water. Leaving this point for the present, it may be noted that this admission of the merchants’ predominating say as to the amofnt of advances provides a very telling comment on the repeated assertions made months ago that all financial arrangements had been satisfactorily made. These statements were like so many more made by the board and its members—they will not bear the full light of dav. We were told at Stratford by Mr.' Forsyth that the stories in the Press telling of friction and disagreement amongst the members of the board were illusory and only propaganda, put about by its opponents. Mr. Winks (though unable to speak; jumped up and emphatically endorsed Mr.

Forsyth's remarks, saying all was harmony, peace and goodwill, and Loped the Press would have courage to publish this all through the country. A little later in the same meeting Mr. Corrigan, -in his address, said: “The position had been greatly alleviated,” a littl statement which gave the vision of peace away. It doesn’t need a college student to tell us there must of necessity bo strain before alleviation can be called into play. In face of the many statements of this nature which have been circulated from time to time, can anyone be surprised at the disgust and lissatisfaction prevalent amongst producers? Had the board realised from the start that it was a public body, and acted as such, instead of adopting the role of the mighty despot, its troubles to-day wouid not have been so manifold. —I am, etc., GEORGE GIBSON. Rahotu, Dec. 2.