PUBLIC OPINION

Taranaki Daily News, 17 September 1940, Page 8

PUBLIC OPINION

W. A. SHEAT.

VIEWS ON CURRENT TOPICS. CALIFORNIAN THISTLE (To the Editor.) Sir, — Your issue of Thursday last reports that at a meeting of the Waimate County Council I was taken severely to task for a remark reported to have been made by me at the Egmont County Council the previous day. I was reported to have said that "members of the executive (Farmers' Union) were very concerned at the spread of the thistle, particularly in the Waimate county." What I did say was that "some members of the executive, particularly some representatives of the Manaia branch, were very concerned at the spread of Californian thistle." I made no suggestion that the trouble was any worse in Waimate than anywhere else, but confmed myself to giving- a true explanation of the origin of the request from the Farmers' Union to the county councils in South Taranaki. It was the Manaia branch of the union which requested the executive to take some action in the matter and it was the Manaia delegates who have been most persistent in their demand that something be done. They, however, have not been so foolish as to suggest that the position round Manaia is any worse than in other localities. They are concerned because they believe the thistle is a menace and that it is getting a hold on the best lands of the province which should be checked if effective means of control can be devised. Nor have these delegates or any others suggested that the position is in any way the fault of the county councils either in Waimate or elsewhere. If anything, it is a tribute to the work county councils have done in respect of other weeds that the executive thought fit to ask for their co-opera-tion in dealing with what many feel to be a growing menace. I do not accept responsibility for all proposals brought before the South Taranaki Farmers" Union, but ss president of that body I do accept responsibility for furthering any decision of the executive. I therefore felt bound, when the matter duly came before the Egmont County Council, to state clearly the position as outlined by those responsible for the proposal and to initiate a discussion on the matter. I regret that a very slight error in the report of my remarks led to a misunderstanding in a neighbouring county. Had the report correctly summarised my statement, I agree that the Waimate council would have had good cause for resentment. I trust, however, that this explanation will clear the matter up and that they will accept my assurance that Waimate county was in no way singled out for special condemr.ztion, that no reflection was made on the council's ehiciency, and that the district was not even referred to except in connection with the origin of the request for action in the matter under discussion. — I am,

Pihama, Sept. 13,.