FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13109, 7 May 1908, Page 3

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

SUMMING UP SPEECHES CONTINUED.

I Before the Conciliation Board yesterday, Mr W. Minson presiding, 3lr D Jones, for the farmers, continued his summing-up address. THE HALF-HOLIDAY QUESTION. In regard to the Saturday halfholiday question, Air Jones said that after making careful investigations, he had ascertained that the holiday would mean a loss of considerably over 13 per cent. In 1905 the export of wheat v.-as, roughly, 1.000.000 bushels. The amount grown was about G,000.0C0 bushels, and our home consumption was 5.0C0.000 bushels. That left an exportable surplus of 1.000.000 bushels. If Mr Dobson's contention was correct, as he maintained it was, it meant that after taking 13 pr>r cent. , off the gross production it was found that instead of having 1,000.000 bushels, they would have only 220,000 bushels. Taking that year lor example, the demands would mean a decrease in exports of 78 per cent. Mr Minson: Do you maintain that all this change will be produced by the half-holiday? Mr Jones said that he did, and the question was the vital point of the whole dispute. The demands if brought into operation would mean bankruptcy for this colony in one year. It was not simply a question of affecting the farming community—the whole business community was taking the keenest interest in the matter, as they recognised that on this question of the loss in production depended the fate of the. Dominion. Loss in export would mean that they would not bo able to pay the interest on the debt th« Dominion was owing. Mr Jones then quoted tho evidence of witnesses who had estimated that the half-holiday would mean a lose of from .seven to nine weeks for which the employer would have to pay for work which was not done. Mr Justice Chapman, he went on, had recently given it as his opinion in regard to the West Coast mines that los& in production in coal would perhaps mean the closing of the mines. It was recognised that the farmer was making only 6 per cent., including his own labour, and the granting of the demands would niean they would be lett with a good deal less than nothing with which tc carry on t the business of tho country. Did the "Board think the agricultural labourer, had he been consulted, would ask to Hβ paid for G3 day.s he did not work on? The loss of time for the 10,000 teams in Canterbury, estimated at 10s a day for each horse, would mean a loss of £300,000 (not £20,000, as Mr Evans had erroneously estimated). Tho total loss in horse feed, wi>ges. etc., would be considerably over £1.000,000. The imposition would mean the ruination of the farming industry, taking things on their present basis. A little more loading on many of the farmers would mean putting them out of existence. In connection with tho holiday question, the country was in a very different position to tiie towns. In the factories, for instance, steam could be shut off at 1 p.m. on Saturdays, but "steam" had to be kept going all the time in the country. The whole of the evidence went to prove that the men got a holiday when they needed it. No Court would award the men the number of holidays they were getting at present. Men had said to the Court that they had been prepared to give a week or perhaps a fortnight, but v if restrictions were placed upon them they must be harder on their .men. The farmer had to live, and if the Union wanted to bring in set conditions, the.fanner would have to also brjng in oastriron rules. There, was also thp point that the 'working: men tß<eJߣelyes were dead against this ..On. the weight .of the WjtJfenoe f rc-m •... the farm labourers themselves had practically prayed V.io be left alone. Messrs Thorn and Kennedy " we're evidently tho only ones who thought tho demands were fair. Continuing, he said Mr Thorn was preeident of the Political Labour League, and an exponent of Socialism. He preached Socialism by night, and •isked for preference for . union iste-by flay. Hβ had said he did not believe in strikes, and encouraged the Blackball men their striked In Cathedral square he had stated tho Arbitration Court was on<ly a means for holding down the labouring man. Mr Thorn must be built on the same lines as a cargo vessel with four or five watertight comparCTnent*;, so that'if it struck a rock it mieht set safely into port with its remaining compartments. THE MATTER OF WAGES.

Mr Thorn was very desirous of getting a one clause award in dealing with wa,<res, and the roa.son for this was obvious. The moment iihey got the farmers under an award with only one clause, they would ask for a higher amount, next time. It was just a i desire to pu.t the farmers in the woolpreiss. and then put on tlw> ratchet as they liked. As far as a uniform wage jvfis concerned, this was not posM'b'le in the country as it was in bhe town. There- was no uniformity in the conIt was also aji impossibility to classify farm labourers. There was such run opportunity of sa.ving money, and settlement was 6o easy, that directly a man became competent he became an emplo-ver. The consequence was that the' majority of the farm labourers were incompetent. Th*> Union, by way of getting over the difficulty of classification, which they admitted was an ian-oracticability, demanded that the learner commence at the same wage as-the competent man. The t'nion's witnesses had been, most chiefly of the travelling class, which proved that they were not representative of the farm labourers. With tho minimum wage there must be a complete abolition of the contract system, and a complete abolition cf the privileges the farmers were giving th» men. The minimum wage was a beautiful theory to tempfc the inconip/tent man to get on the same foot- ■ ing as the competent man. THE PERMIT SYSTEM. In regard to the permit system, tho Union was dropping to pieces all over the country, a.nd who was going to grant these permits? It was all right in the -townships, where the Union was a known quantity. Every man had a right to live, and there were in tho i country a large, .percentage of men I who must come, under the permit system. In _ continuing his remarks on the permit question after tho luncheon adjournment, 3lr Jones maintained that | any system that might bo devised could - not possibly prove as satisfactory as present arrangements. FARMERS AXI> TAXATION. The cry of 'T>ouble the- farmer's taxes!" which was a proof of the Socialistic tendencies of the country, would crush the farmer if allowed to oontinue. He could honestly state that from tho information he had gained there were many farmers who would be ruined by any further increase in expenses. Tho farmer had no power of passing on the increased cost to the i consumer. Mr Grigg had stated that when Longbeach was in a very low inancial position, Mr Grigg, senr., had called his men together and told them that if tKey would accept a reduction of 12§ per cent, in wages temporarily, ho thought they would bo ablo to tide over the difficulty. His men had accepted the offer and had saved Mr Grigg from bankruptcy. He (the speaker) contended .that if a minimum wage had. been. in force, there would have been no possibility of coming to this arrangement, and the ereat value.

that Longbearh had been to the Dominion would have been lost.

CONDITION OF FARMING

INDUSTRY.

The last, two years meant to the farming community that not only had thoy not been making -money, but they Lid. i/eeai going: (backwards. Jn fact, nwny of the Canterbury farmers were i." , a worse position now than they wero two yeans ago. The* Rinloch settlers w-c-rc- <so -badly effected- by the low prices prevailing that a deputation had recently waned on the Minister and aoked lor assistance from the Government. This sconce l the position, of the men who had recently commenced firming. 3lr Staveley had eteted before the Beard that, taking into consideration tho less in wool and other products, ifoe present was a very inopportune time- for dealing with the coud'it.ioiiK o< the industry. In no other country in the world was the - farm labourer so favourably situated as he wne in New Zealand. Jn this country his position was such thirb ho could climb in a fow years into th© posi-ticn of tho farmer" hi-mseif. ZMr Trotter had given' evidence ■ showing that o5 youug men, within a email radius, had got on to the land through tht-ir own efforts. Mr I&adley had made- the*important statement that fully Do per cent, of the farmers on the Ash-burton Plains had ri-sem from the ranks. This proved that the present system was very satisfactory to tlve country, and he would point out that the Union's witnesses were men who, with one or two exceptions, had tic- ambitipn to get on to the land. It was the magnificent wages tho mem were receiving that -enabled them to get farms of their own. THE EVIDENCE. The non-unionists who had come before the Board were actively engaged in the industry, and w&re more entitled to speak than the unionists, who had given evidence. The Union,' would 'ba,ve to -purge tJic-ir lolt. before they could come into Court and ask for preference. Tho Union Jiad refused sidin several inetaneee to men who had sought to join the Union, simip-ly became it wanted unanimity in its viewa. The Uniion had net proved tliat the system of co-operative family labour was not i Mossing. The Union representatives had nob offered to .t-a-ke tjio Board to any station where the accommodation was unsatisfactory, and consequently he had arrived at the conclusion that they did not know of any β-uch places. « '.Mr Jonts will continue his remarks •\clien the Board resumes at 10.30 o'clock this morning.