THE FARMERS' LIBERTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 253, 26 October 1933, Page 6

THE FARMERS' LIBERTY.

Tour correspondent "D." attempts to criticise Mr. Richards' able presentation of the case for the dairy farmer in connection with the obnoxious .and unjust regulation concerning the transfer of cream from one factory to another. It is interesting to note that "D." has to go to America to find justification for this gross attack on the dairy farmer's, rjght to dispose of the product of his labour to the best advantage. Most of us have had the impression that this Country looked to the Mother of Parliaments, Britain, for guidance in these . matters, but presumably the 014 Country is not "twentieth century" enough for "D." and those who think like him as there they are still old-fashioned enough to hold the same , ideas regarding property as Mr. Richards holds. "D." says the dairy industry has been soundly built on co-operation. If he really believes that it has been soundly built, why does he advocate substituting coercion or compulsion, for co-operation? One is the opposite of the other. It is true that there has not yet been a tremendous outcry, as few were aware that such a drastic regulation had been brought in, and if it had- not been for the ventilation given by the Court case, the majority of the dairy farmers -would probably have been in ignorance until they wanted to make a change of factory. There are many good and sufficient reasons for & dairy farmer wanting to leave one factory and go to another; better payout, more efficient service, to mention only two. Take South Auckland—during the past 12 yearSi new factories now exporting 16,000 tons of butter have come into existence. Surely the suppliers to these factories do not represent "farmers who for petty reasons transfer of threaten to transfer their supply to another factory." There must be some other explanation. It looks as if these progressive farmers found ways and means of reaping benefits that were previously denied them. If some regulation or other compelled ""D." to permanently work for a firm which paid him a low salary, when if it were not for the regulation he could obtain more congenial employment and a higher salary from another firm, would he agree that the restriction was beneficial T BUTTBRFAT.