BURDEN OF INTEREST.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 56, 7 March 1932, Page 6

BURDEN OF INTEREST.

POSITION OF THE FARMER. (To the Editor.) Mr. J. M. Melville expresses astonißh meat that anyone should advocate a reduction «♦ interest on existing mortgages. Mr. Melvill says that the principle of binding contract u 2000 years old. There are other principle also which are just as old, but must be di*. carded under vastly altered conditions. Tak" the case of a farmer, as quoted by lf r jjj* ville, with a mortgage of £2000 at 6J per cenL When the farmer arranged his mortgage he wai receiving at least 1/9 per pound for his butter fat. At this figure every hundred pounds of mortgage was costing him just a fraction over 741b of butterfat per year, or for the whnla mortgage 14851b of butterfat. At an averZ of 3001b this is the whole season's production of 4 57-60 cows. To-day he is receiving say 1/, which is a liberal allowance. At this'pric his mortgage is costing him 1301b of butterfat per £100 of mortgage, or an aggregate of 20001b of butterfat per year, the annual output of 8 2-3 cows. Is it any wonder the farmer can. not make his farm pay? Mr. Melville aJso says: "We have people with of £600 agitating for a 1 per cent reduction of interest. How far will £0 per year help themJ» If Mr. Melville was a relief worker with a family of, say, four, to keep on the present relief pay of £1 7/8J per week, he would probably realise what a god-send this £6 would be.. In the event of Mr. Melville's voluntary conversion loan being floated, would he favour the publication of names of all individuals who refused to convert? If, as he suggests w» must eventually adopt compulsion, why' not do it now before we reach absolute disaster! M.U.GMI