23

I.—Sa

hear the testimony of nearly half the growers of fruit in New Zealand. I hope and trust the Committee will at least give due weight to that fact, because we know that several gentlemen have given evidence as single fruit-growers, and we think that the- Committee will no doubt recognise that their evidence is simply the evidence of individual growers. I will read two or three extracts from the communications from the affiliated associations. Here is one from the secretary of the Warkworth Association, dated the 9th July, 1898: "That this association is of opinion that the Government should not introduce compulsory legislation at the request of three or four experts unless their request is supported by the fruit-growers generally, expressed through their local associations and central unions." There are some more here which I think I must read, because they bear very directly on what we say. This is Mr. Hutton's opinion:—"'Clause 16: No compensation for destruction of fruit-trees and vines—abominable, especially as the principle of compensation is admitted as regards stock." As the Committee are no doubt aware, under the Stock Act compensation is allowed. Well, these fruit-pests are very much in the same position. They have been introduced by the general public, and not by the growers, and we feel it greatly that the whole cost of eradicating the pests should be thrown upon us when it is the general public who have introduced them. The pests have been introduced by the fruit-consuming portion of the public, and they are responsible for their introduction, and not the fruit-growers. We cannot help thinking that it would be very unjust that orchards should be liable to be destroyed without any compensation being given. We think that at least half the cost should be allowed, which would still leave the owners great losers. We think that if an orchard were so bad that it must be destroyed, then at least half the cost should be allowed, because the owners have had no control over preventing the introduction of the pests, which have been really introduced by the public. Mr Hutton also says, " Owing to the ineffectiveness of arsenites as a whole in destroying codlin-moth in the Auckland Province, owing to the constant showers necessitating spraying possibly every week during fruit-season, and consequent damage to the vitality of the trees, arsenites should not be used here." This gentleman has sprayed nearly every week during one season. He was a most enthusiastic believer in the present means of destroying the pest. He introduced a Strawsoniser, and every up-to-date appliance he could get, and he sprayed continuously, so that his evidence is not that of a novice, and he has found that it has been entirely ineffective. 15. Ron. Mr. McKenzie.~\ Your association or union objects to diseased fruit-trees or cuttings being introduced into your district from the Australian Colonies ?—Oh, yes, we certainly object to that. We suffer to an intolerable extent from that. 16. They would introduce some disease which you have not got ?—Yes, a great many. 17. And you would desire them to be kept out of the colony?— Most decidedly. The pests we have already are quite enough to deal with. 18. In giving evidence you stated that you thought this Bill should not apply to any portion of the colony. Do you not think that the fruit-growers in the southern portions of the colony have just as much right to object to your fruit going there as you have to Australian fruit going into your district ? —I might reply that I was also in a clean district, and did not receive the codlinmoth from an infested district. My orchard is isolated, and it got infected through sugar-bags being thrown in. I think that only shows the futility of isolation. The pest may be checked, but it is simply impossible to keep districts clean that are already clean, owing to the difficulty of preventing the introduction of the pest, as it may be brought in any way. 19. Supposing you were a fruit-grower in the South Island without" the codlin-moth, would you not think it was wrong and very unfair to have the codlin-moth introduced from the Auckland District ?—There is not the least doubt that it is a very great hardship that any people should suffer from the action of their fellow-colonists in any respect. If we could do this without doing irreparable injury to those engaged in the industry it would be quite right, but I fail to see how it is going to be accomplished, unless we make quarantine districts throughout every district in the colony. 20. You see that by section 3 Auckland is to be exempt from the operation of the Bill ?—Yes ; but that places us at a great disadvantage in some respects. It affects to leave the Auckland portion of the colony out from the operation of the Act, but it still prevents Auckland having free intercourse with the rest of the colony. Auckland has a very large trade with the South, and it receives from the South large quantities of oats, grain, and other produce. There is a natural interchange of goods between us in the nature of barter. We send fruit and timber in exchange for the southern products. 21. You desire to have permission to send diseased fruit to the South in exchange for their sound oats and grain ?—By no means. It would be so if we sent them diseased fruit, but we do not do so. 22. Then there is no harm done by this Bill: if your trade is in clean fruit you can send it anyway?—lt happens this way : that a portion of a case of fruit may contain a moth or two. It is impossible to prevent that. 23. Then, you object to be allowed to " stew in your own gravy " up there, and wish to spread it over other parts of the colony?—We do not wish to hurt any of our fellow-colonists, whether North or South, but we fail to see why the southern people, who may have sent the codlin-moth up to us in Tasmanian fruit, should escape altogether. I have seen cases of such fruit that was sent up from the South which were infected with the pest, and yet we are called upon to stand the consequences. 24. Of what value will your orchards be to you if you have the pest ?—I have a letter here which will show you what the value of our orchards is. It is the report of a Wellington dealer with regard to apples sent from the Port Albert district, and it says that the fruit sent from Auckland is better in quality, and that the trade from there is increasing more than from the South,