THE RECENT HORTICULTURAL SHOW AT TE AWAMUTU.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2770, 15 April 1890, Page 2

THE RECENT HORTICULTURAL SHOW AT TE AWAMUTU.

TO TllK EDITOR. Sib,—The committee wish me to call your attention and that of your readers to many statements of a most misleading character, in reference to the above show, which have lately appeared in the colounins of your valuable paper. Firstly in your issue of 20th March you state " we have received several complaints that the second prizes were not in all cases awarded at the Te Awamutu Show. We refer to the special prizes." As to the receipt of these " several complaints" the committee are not in a position to contradict the Editorial " we," but at the same time they wish to remark : 1. That no member of the committee has received any such complaint; 2. That if any exhibitor felt himself aggrieved, and desired to make a complaint,'.he should have done so to the committee and not to the Editor of The Waikato Times ; 3. That on the 20th March the hon. secretary wrote to you requesting to be favoured with the names of the "several" parties making complaints to you ; 1. That in reply thereto you very kindly informed the committee that the several complaints consisted of the large number of two—one of the complainants being Mr James Forrest (of Melliferous renown) and the other Mr T. Hicks. —You also stated that both of these gentlemen had been requested to make complaint in writing in order that the Committee might deal with same. (i. Up to date (12th April) no complaint of any kind has been received by the committee, if we except a letter from Mr Forrest, dated 31st instant, asking for his prize money, and containing this somewhat extraordinary sentence " Done out of comb honey prixe ; should think Mr Vause will thank me for lending him my exhibit, it cannot have happened in any other way—or was it the steward's mistake.—Yours faithfully, (signed) J. Fobbest."—The following is an extract of reply thereto, written by the hon. secretary on behalf of the committee "Te Awamutu, flth April, 1890, —To Mu James Fobuest, Cambridge : Dear Sir,—Your favour of 31st inst. would have replied earlier, but only yesterday received the £4 from the Farmers' Club. You seem to have fallen into a very strange mistake in supposing that, aa you express it, you were 'done out of coinb-honey prize.' As y&nr views on this matter have appeared in print, the committee will, of necessity, be put to the trouble of plainly showing that the error is entirely your own.—Yours faithfully, (signed) Thomas (Jkesham, Hon. Sec. Show Committee." —In your issue of 3rd instant under the heading " Waikato Farmers' Club," Mr Fisher is made to state that " they either did not make the conditions explicit enoogh, or the show committee had neglected them. After the prizes had been awarded there should have been a ticket on each exhibit of biead, &c., stating whose flour it was made from, and the brand. The Waikato Times had promised a paper specially referring to the matter, but it had not yet appeared. Thero had been a slight reference made to the matter, but even that looked as if it had been inspired. His wife had the honour of taking a first prize and the bread was made of Chambers' flour, made from Waikato wheat only; and ht; believed the majority of the successful exhibitors had used similar flour, and there should have been some method of letting the public become aware of the fact."— These statements are best answered as follows:—1. That of the six prizes awarded by the Waikato Farmers' Club, five were awarded to To Awamutu and one to Cambridge. 2. That the Te Awamutu prizewinners used Te Awamutu Roller Mill's flour. As to what you wrote being inspired," the committee imagine that you, Mr Editor, can best deal with that imputation. Then in the same report Mr Forrest is made to say. " things had been greatly muddled at the show. His honey had been mixed with another exhibitor's and the prize had gone with it. It was hardly fair to have your own stuff shown against you.—Mr Hartly stated he had heard a different version and thought Mr Forrest had mad" a mistake about bis honey." Again, in your issue of last Thursday (10th instant), the following appears:—ln referonce to the judges award for section honey at the late show at Cambridge (sic), Mr J. Forrest writes: "There was some mistake or oversight in thosb honey exhibits at the late show, and that he could hardly overlook a statement of some contributor to The Waikato Times, giving Mr Vause high praise for his excellent honey in sections of different sizes. Now, there was no other exhibitor, of sectioned honey but myself, of which I had two cases with glass fronts. I therefore still maintain that those sections praised could not have belonged to Mr Vause, and what I am still certain of is that I did not get credit for having two cases of comb honey to judge. The show was a credit to Waikato, but in future exhibitors should be taught to keen to the schedule, unless for extras. A dark frame of honey covered with bees (not in working as stupidly stated) should not be qualified under the head of honey in comb. I noticed a few other exhibits not according to schedale, yet admitted to compete and gain prisces." With regard to the above, the committee would remark (a) that they have nothing whatever to do with any statement from a "contributor" to The Waikato Times, as hitherto they had deemed these items beneath their notice, and were patiently waiting till Mr Forrest and Mr T. Hicks had lodged their coinplaints in writing, as requested some three weeks since; (b) that the actual facts as regards the honey are as follows :—(1) The section honey which obtained the first and only prize in that class against all-comers was the property of Mr Vause and not of Mr Forrest; (2) the glass case which contained this section honey measures 15 inches by 24 inches, and is now in Mr Vause's possession. The honey itself consists of one 4£lb. section and five lib. sections; (3) on tne top of that glass case was placed another glass case of honey (with bees), and which is also the property of Mr Vause. 4. It measured 21 inches by 11 inches, and contained one b. section of honey. f>. Mr Forrest's exhibits were contained in glass cases of dimension and shapes quite different from those of Mr Vause. (i. These exhibits of Mr Forrest's were at least two feet away from those of Mr Vause, and could not by any possibility have been "mixed up" with hi*, and were not, in fact, as Mr Forrest would have the public to believe, so " mixed up." 7. The only honey prize awarded to Mr Forrest was for extracted honey. This was in a cubic block, and in some bottles, which were placed altogether apart from Mr Vauso's honey. 8. The card notifying that Mr Vause's comb-honoy had been awarded the prize was placed upon Mr Vause's exhibit, as awarded by the judges, upon the lower of Mr Vause's two glass cases. 9. Mr Forrest had ample opportunity to lodge a pretest, (if he then considered he had been wronged). Instead of so doing, he did not even utter a complaint to any member of the committee. 10. From the " fuss " that Mr Forrest has since chosen to make on the subject of his alleged grievance, through the medium of your paper, and elsewhere, it is not reasonable to suppose that he would have allowed the matter to pass without remark upon the show-day, One word to your sub-editor. The committee would be glad to impress upon that gentleman the fact that the recent show was actually held, not at Cambridge, as your issue of the 10th instant states, but at Te Awamutu. This notice is rendered necessary, as the Herald coirespondent for Hamilton annnounced (we quote from the Auckland Herald of 18th March) The train brought up a large contingement for the Horticultural Show at Hamilton, but few persons from Hamilton and beyond.—l am, etc. Thomas Gresham, Hon. Sec., Show Coinmitte. Te Awamutu, 12th April, 1890.