a7 



ftiatter was introduced by the Government, but Parliament voted 

 against it, backed up, he presumed, by the teetotallers. He agreed 

 with the Chairman that so many things had been mentioned that 

 definite conclusions could only be arrived at in committee. 



Mr. Craike said he agreed with Mr. Caughey in regard to the 

 remarks made by Mr. Irvine and Mr. Bear. He took exception 

 altogether to Mr. Irvine's remark that the faulty constitution of 

 the Viticulture Board caused it to be a nonentity. The Board 

 had never been a nonentity. It had done good work, and every 

 point mentioned by Mr. Irvine had been brought prominently 

 before the Minister. Unfortunately the whole difficulty was in 

 the want of funds. He also agreed with Mr. Caughey that the 

 Board was an elective Board as far as it was possible to be at 

 that time. It was intended by Mr. Dow that the Board should 

 continue upon an elective basis, and the reason that idea was not 

 carried out was that it was the intention of the Government to 

 introduce an Insect Pests Bill, in which the whole matter would 

 have been dealt with, but from various causes it was put off from 

 time to time. He was glad none of the previous speakers had 

 accused the Board of any intention to remain without coming 

 before the people for re-election. The suggestions made in the 

 papers were very valuable, but he would point out that a new 

 Board, elected in the elaborate manner proposed by Mr. West, 

 would become as much a nonentity as the present Board, unless 

 they could persuade the Ministry and Parliament to give efEect to 

 their advice when they offered it. That had been the fault all 

 along. As to the School of Viticulture there had not been a year 

 in which there had not been deputations from the Board, and they 

 had been well supported by the Vine-growers' Associations in their 

 demand for that concession, but the want of funds had always 

 been the plea, and they were still in the same position, and he 

 thought it unkind to blame the Board pf Viticulture and call them 

 a nonentity because they had not been successful. The details of 

 the schemes referred to in the papers must necessarily be thrashed 

 out in committee, but he thought Mr. Irvine's proposal to give 

 four members to a district with 10,000' acres a great mistake, 

 because one member could represent a district as well as four, and 

 it would have the effect of over-riding the new districts planted 

 under the bonus system. He thought the suggestion of the Board 

 of Viticulture was a much better one — that was to take the vine- 

 growing centres and leave it to the Department to map out exactly 

 .the number of square miles each member should represent. Mr. 

 Bear made the remark that the Board of Viticulture had ceased 

 to give advice at all. That showed that Mr. Bear had not had an 

 opportunity of seeing what the Board had been doing, as the 

 papers did not report their doings as fully as they might do, but 

 lie could assure that gientleman that they had not ceased to give 

 advice. The Board were continually giving advice, but they were 



