Better Oranges

New Laws Cause Stir In Cook Is.

From Our Own Correspondent.

Rarotonga, Dec. 11.

AS a result of the visit to the Cook Islands in July and August past, of Mr. Smith, the Secretary of the Cook Islands Department at Wellington, the Fifth Amendment to the Fruit Regula tions of 1928 has made its appearance.

Presumably tired of the complaints re ceived from interested parties, to wit, the fruit speculators mostly, on the inferiority of the Cook Islands oranges, Mr. Smith immediately after his arrival set about interviewing European planters, and hold ing settlement meetings with native growers, that he might learn what was needed to make an improvement. These regulations are the outcome.

The native growers, looking at the low prices which they have habitually ob tained for their oranges for many years past, and which they rightly attribute to the dumping of Australian oranges, per mitted by the New Zealand Government, more than to the inferiority of their fruit, were by no means unanimous about in curring further expenses in growing fruit, which it may be safely said does not bring them a profit, on the average, of one shilling per case in Rarotonga.

In this respect it might be mentioned that the restriction of imports from Aus tralia during our orange season of 1938 did result in a slightly better average price of round 1/6 per case. But consider the agitation of the fruit speculators to have this embargo removed, in which they succeeded.

Whether they like it or not, the Cook Island growers are to be dragooned into improvement, and if one can judge by appearances at the roadside, a number have already begun to follow the new law, as trees pruned and whitewashed are be coming noticeable. But how far inland is this work being carried on?

Amendment No. 5 is in the right direc tion; contains nothing that an intelligent citrus grower would not of his own voli tion do, and should result in a cleaner and better looking fruit if followed out pro perly. It will be years before the native owners can be persuaded or forced to cut down all diseased or infected trees; thin all clumps of citrus trees; prune all dead wood; cut down trees to a desirable height; cultivate under all trees; and to treat, disinfect, and otherwise deal with all trees as may be ordered by the Direc tor of Agriculture.

If the owners do not carry out the work, the Director can carry it out at the expense of the owner. The recovery of the expenses will present difficulty in a great many cases. Remember Samoa!

Further, with a view to lessening the fruit fly nuisance, all fallen citrus fruit, mangoes, and avocado pears, are to be gathered weekly, and buried or burnt. As they will not burn they must be buried deep, to be effective in fly destruction.

Also, guavas and rose apples are declared noxious weeds. It appears as if the planters will be so busy cutting, spray ing, burning, burying, and digging out guava and rose apple bushes that they will have no time to plant food or any thing else.

The Amendment bears evidence of hav ing been got out in a hurry, and no doubt will be further amended.

One or two of the regulations make one wonder whether the property belongs to

the owners in fee simple, or to the Government.

For instance, No. 7 makes it unlawful “for any owner to tether animals of any kind to any citrus tree.” Presumably, any one other than the owner can do so and commit no breach of the regulation; and it must be understood that by the defini tion it is the owner of the land, not the owner of the horse, who shall fall into

trouble. Trespassing and tethering horses on other people’s land are among the greatest annoyances land holders suffer from here; the horses being tethered after dark and removed at daybreak. The signs are obvious, but the ownership of the horse is not. This regulation should have the words “any person” substituted for “any owner.”

But apart from this, to fine a man for

tethering his own animal to his own tree on his own land is going a bit far in the direction of expropriation of ownership rights. Further, to force a man to cut a good healthy tree —for remember diseased and infected trees are dealt with sepa rately—to some height selected by the Director of Agriculture, for no reason that is given in the regulations (the actual wording being “to cut down any citrus tree to such a height as may be directed by the notice”) seems to be wrong some where.

To sum up, the Regulations are in the right direction, but the mouthful is too

big to chew at once. Fortunately our Director of Agriculture is helpful, and will, we hope, use a mixture of enthu siasm tempered with common sense, to make these regulations work harmoni ously and beneficially, without too much Court prosecution, of which the island has more than its share at all times.

We have had packing sheds here for a few years, resulting in a multiplication of officials and extra charges. We have better packing, admittedly, but of the same old fruit, with no better prices to the growers. Our dread is that these new regulations will result similarly.

The fruit business appears to be en tirely at the disposal of the fruit specula tors in Auckland, Wellington, and Christ church. However, these regulations, which we believe are honest in intention, seem to be the first that have not had their source in their scheming brains, and are for our benefit, not theirs.