Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1917. LAST MAN ON THE FARM.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVII, Issue 9127, 24 October 1917, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1917. LAST MAN ON THE FARM.

;: • :-.i- •■ •. 1 .■■;■-, •-,■/*".■■■■■.; 1 The Military Service Boards axe naturally much concerned at the action of the Government, in issuing a memorandum relating to men engaged in-farming. The terms of the memorandum practically constitute a national policy with regard "to exemptions; and the Military Service Boards cannot be blamed for regarding this as an infringement of their power, j The exemptions recommended were unclfer three categories— namely: (1) The owner-farmer doing ail the work on his farm ; (2) the last son on his infirm parents' farm;, and (3) skilled agricultural labourers. The/memorandum distinctly indicated that in the third category exemption should be granted unless efficient labour was available to rejplace them, but as to the first and second categories.. exemption should be granted even, ajthpugh efficient substitutes were available. It is well known; however, that no definite rule such as is here outlined would operate successfully in all cases, and the. Legislature specifically provided, in framing the Act, that eacn case should be decided on its merits. How necessary this provision, is was shown by a statement made by Mr D. G. A . Cooper, chairman of the-First Wellington' Military Service Board, in commenting on the memorandum. "It is within the knowledge of my board," he said, <( that farms have been divide^ up, evidently with the object' of saving members of a family, from being; taken for military service; that in other case's s6ns are on farms, but their production is trifling, and that in some instances the application of the general rule set out in the 1 memorandum ■referred to would result in sheltering family ! shirkers oi the worst kind. My board cannot see how any general rule can justly be applied which ignores the special circumstances of individual cases." It would be unfortunate, however, 'if the boards*, in a natural desire to preserve their judicial functions, entirely ignored the Government's suggestions regarding exemptions. The time has arrived when a great deal more consideration will have to be given to the claims of the producers than has been up to ihe present regarded as necesbaiy. Because the boards may meet with instances such as Mr Cooper referred to, it must not be taTteirior granted that all far-/ mers and farm-labourers appeal merely 1 because they object .to military service. There is a genuine shortage of certain classes of farm labour, and many men who are working farms single-handed are actually serving the country to a greater extent than if they were employed in a military Vapncity. It is quite probable that unless discrimination is shown with regard to exemptions many farms will have to be left uncultivated, and would entail heavy expense to bring back'to asiato oi productivity— •to say nothing of the loss of crops', etc, during the period they were idle. • We knpw that members of Military Boards are somewhat sceptical o( some of the storiqs told by farmer appellants, but a! tour of any farming district would convince them that many genuine cases St hardship 1 exist, and that these will be increased when the Second Division men are called up, unless all appeals are most carefully investigated.