SUBSTANCE OR SHADOW?

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 83, 4 October 1924, Page 6

SUBSTANCE OR SHADOW?

Whatever may be the views of other farmers, Mr. A. A. Ross is apparently determined to proceed with the organisation of a Country Party. A Press Association message reports that Mr. Ross spoke at Hamilton, and announced the policy..of the party.; The policy statement covered by the message is as vague and shadowy as are the Country Party's chances of accomplishing anything constructive. But if the objects of the party are indefinite, the reasons advanced for its formation are even more so— except where they are incorrect. " In Britain, Canada, and Australia," Mr. Eoss stated, " the farmers were taking political action with beneficial results." Recently we quoted a report by the Canadian correspondent of " The Times ." upon the position of -farmers' parties in that Dominion. Its substance was that the farmers' political movement had proved such a failure that it had ceased to be in some provinces and was waning in others. Of farmers' political action in Britain we have no news which would suggest anything resembling a strong separate party. But surely Mr. Ross cannot seriously claim beneficial results from the Country Party, movement in Australia! The Country Party in the States has opened doors for Labour which would have remained closed for years, and in Federal pontics a similar result has been avoided only by a working agreement which does not permit the farmers to control the Government and deprives the general community of that stability which is essential for political peace and progress. If Mr. Ross claims that these are beneficial^ results, no doubt the Labour Party will agree with him—and hope for similar " beneficial results " in this Dominion.

The statement of economic grievances made by Mr. Ross is a grave one if it. could be substantiated. For example, " it was the primary producer who had finally to bear the whole cost of everything, as every charge was passed on until it finally reached the primary producer, wlip wai unable t_ yasa it

on." But what of the operation of the law of supply and demand? Does Mr. Ross suggest that all other classes — financiers, merchants, manufacturers, salaried people, and wage-earners—are so well organised that they can make this law of no effect, and that the farmer alone is subject to it? He says, indeed, that other sections are strongly organised for their own protection—why not the farmers? But of what form of organisation does Mr. Eoss speak? Other sections—except a section, of Labour —are not organised politically, and, if non-political organisations are referred to, then the farmers are already quite as far advanced as most classes of the community. But in stating the political aims of the new party Mr. Ross has achieved his highest point in vague expression. His reference to income and debenture taxation is merely a statement of a problem which other parties recognise and which the present Government has done much to solve. ' More it cannot do at present without seriously damaging public credit. The remainder of the aims are-, so vaguely set out that it is almost impossible to criticise them.

. The party's first aim (it was stated) was the reduction of the burdens at present placed, upon-the primary producers. The reform of the land mortgage- system was the first thing to be taken in hand. Then there was the huge and ever-growing system of protective duties for secondary industries, which were increasing the cost of living.

How is the land mortgage system to be reformed ? The idea of some farmers appears to be a perpetual moratorium, which would at once dry up the sources of farming finance. The tariff reference, is more definite; but Mr.' Ross mentions only the protection of secondary industries. Is his Free Trade policy to be one-sided, or does he favour the abolition of protective duties (not to mention embargoes) "on primary products also—on wheat, flour, potatoes, and other things the farmer has to sell. The Hamilton audience which Mr. Ross addressed apparently did not ask these questions. . Instead, it gave him a .hearty vote of thanks. But other people will not be- so easily satisfied, and he and his supporters will receive no votes of thanks if they, in their foolish pursuit of the shadow of a farmers' Government, rob the community (including themselves) of the substantial benefit accruing from a Government of moderate men who, whatever their other faults, cannot fairly be accused of weighting the scales against the country people.