PROPOSED REMISSION OF DUTY.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12937, 17 October 1907, Page 8

PROPOSED REMISSION OF DUTY.

OBJECTIONS OF FARMERS' UNION. At yesterday's meeting of the Executive of the NortL Canterbury branch of the Farmers' Union, a lengthy discussion ensued on the proposal of the Government that when the price of flour reaches £11 per ton, the duty on imported -wheat and flour shall be remitted. Mr 0. W. Leadley moved:—"That the Premier be asked to forward the Executive at the earliest possible moment the proposed legislation dealing with tho duties on imported flour and wheat." He said that, personally, he i was opposed to the Government's proposal, and considered it was a mistake. He did not sco why, if the State regulation of prices of foodstuffs was introduced, it should not apply to other things—such as boots, furniture, and land. The principle was a wrong I and vicious one. Mr iSheat, in seconding the motion, said that if such legislation was passed it should provide for a subsidy being paid to farmers when wheat fell below a certain price. It was an established fact that a bushel of wheat could not bo produoed under 2s Bd. Consequently ■when wheat was sold at 2s Id— 7<\ lower than the cost of production— the Government should make up the difference to the farmer. The Government should approach this suggestion with a judicial mind, and the Executive should give members of Parliament a lead on the subject. Ho said so advisedly, because members of Parliament had not the data upon which to decide such matters. In urging that a subsidy should be paid, he pointed out that wheat had been sold in Canterbury as low as Is 10d per bushel. Mr 11. Evans: I hare had to sell it at Is 7d. The motion was agTeed to. Mr W. T. Lill moved:—"That this meeting urge upon the Premier the in advisability of interfering with, the wheat and flour duties." Mr Leadley seconded the motion y and controverted the argument that the rise in the price of flour, and consequently of bread, was due (in addition to the action of the Millers' Trust) to the fact that farmers were holding back their wheat. He asserted that not one farmer in one hundred was benefiting to any extent by the rise in the price of wheat. Even if a farmer was selling at ss, or whatever was obtainable at present, he would not be more than paid for this year's harvest, considering the poor yields. He believed that before the end of the present year there would not be a bushel of wheat un milled in New Zealand. The principle proposed to be introduced by the Government was a mistake, and there was no knowing where it was going to stop. It would hit the farmer in the first instance, but it would hit others. He thought the noise made about the rise in the price of bread was out of proportion to the total increased cost of bread to a family of six, which would be 8d or 9d per week. Mr R. Evans said that until they saw the Bill they should not move in the matter. Mr Lochhead thought they were working in the dark. If, however, the Government introduced the principle mentioned, they should be urged to subsidise farmers when wheat fell in price. Mr Howson thought the discussion was rather premature. It was often found that people were most frightered by the storm that never reached them. Mr Cooper suggested that the motion should be withdrawn. Mr Leadley contended that the State regulation of prices should apply all round. Mr Evans said foe quite agreed, and he would go on the platform and help Mr Leadley, if necessary, but the time was not ripe for the motion. Mr Ensor said he thought it would bu a great mistake if farmers sat still and allowed the Government to restrict the prices of produce. The President (Mr D. Jones) said he was quite in sympathy with the motion. It was unfortunate that for the past two years they had had this constant stir in connection with the removal of the duty on flour, and the consumer who had joined in the agitation had to suffer to-day for his sins One of the reasons for the shortage of -wheat was that agitation. Farmers were not prepared to compete against Australian wheat. He himself had gone out of wheat-growing hecause he could grow other crops that were more'profitable. It was in the interests of the consumer, as well as the grower, that the duty should remain. Mr Lill hoped the meeting would not sit still and wait to see what the Government were going to do. If they spoke before the Government proposals came down, they would be twice heard; if they waited, they might shout as they liked and they would not be beard. The sooner they told the Government and the people that they would not stand this sort of thing the better it would be. He possessed wheat land worth £30 per acre, and this year he had not sowed half the wheat that he might have sowed f it had not been for the agitation for the n-moral of the duty. They had a right to speak and to state clearly that they did not wish this country to go to the d"gs4;hrough a few people who had nothing to do with it. They were inteieeted in it, and it was their -luty to protest. The motion was agreed to unanimously, and it was decided to telegraph ite terms to the Premier, and to forward a copy to each member ot Parliament.