"FARMERS AND THE WAR."

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15464, 17 December 1915, Page 12

"FARMERS AND THE WAR."

to rrrc editor ok "the tress." 'Sir, —For some years now I have boon a constant subscriber to your paper, always looking upon it as something clean and high-principled in tho newspaper line, but when 03.0 reads of the diny, contemptible trash contained in a letter by "A Voice, from tho Land," one wonders for a moment if they have really got hold of "The Press." Surely, Sir, you owe it to your patriotic readers To refrain from publishing such piffle. Your columns could surely bo made more readable than containing letters from tho likes of your correspondent above-mentioned. However, since you have wen lit to give publicity to the sentiments exin fnis letter, perhaps you would likewise graiit space to one who ■will .set himself tho congenial task of riddling his little arguments and assertions. One can well pass over his oponjng statement about tho Germans having things all their own way, etc. I shall deal mostly with the gross misstatements contained in his letter. Why does ho lead us to believe that, potatoes -were 110 higher than £3 a ton, and beef 32s Cd per cwt. ? No dou'ut the figures are correct if applied only to a vei-y small portion of the winter, but he omits to state what the arerago price for the two lines was. He is apparently trying to draw a red herring across the track in mentioning the above lines, which are but an infinitesimal portion of tho products of Canterbury, or even .New Zealand as a whole. Why is ho not honest, and admit the-tremendously high prices obtained for our staple products—butter, wheat,, wool, mutton, etc.? No! that would settle his little game; that would show us tho reason why farmers are enabled this year to build modern residences and buy expensive motorcars'. The "parasites"' of the cities have had no part in the raising of orice.s to an abnormal extent. It does not behovo vour correspondent to sneer at tho poop to., of the city. "Where would lie and his farmer friends be were it not. for those he terms ''parasites''? "Who is it that keeps him in luxury? It is the men of the cities at whom he sneers, those whom ho so kindly tells to go and light his battles,

that to may stay at home and fatten upon the very heart's blood of the "parasites" of the city. We may cry "rotter" and "shirker" to those in the town -who refuse to enlist, but the rotters and shirkers are to bo found amongst the sons of -well-to-do, thoso of "A Voire from the Land"' ilk. Thai's where you find them. Is it not a well-known fact that the rich farmers' cons aro staying at home? It is a fact that many of the well-to-do farmers even went so far as to sell every grain of wheat at an enormous price, and yet had the audacity to ask the Government to supnly them with seed wheat at reduced price. , Ts that not a parasitical act? One will go a long wav to find such actions bv city folk. And now in regard to taxation. What I blame our Government for is that they have utterly failed in their duty to the country m permitting the farmers to • grow rich at the expense of tho people, and place on them not anything in the way of war taxation comparable with the amount of their increased profits. Let me ask your correspondent this question: Has it cost more to shear the sheep? to grow the feed? to raise tho lambs? to milk and feed, the cows? to sow and reap the wheat? Yet for all these products prices have been realised that were beyond even the wildest dreams of the "farmer. Who, then, has made this increase? .Nothing the farmer has done has canscd it; B therefore, I say that our Government are wanting in their duty in not confiscating at least 50 per cent, of tho increased war profits of'farmers. Your correspondent has mighty little to squeal about. "Were he in the position of the writer Ca small shopkeeper), he could with justice cry out. Yet I and others in a like position are paving up checrfully, realising that we have a duty to perform at tho present time. \» hat would your correspondent say if he, on a decreasing turnover, had to pay £10 a year war taxation? Yet that is m_y position.—Yours etc. E. L. M. fWo thought everyone understood that tho correspondence column of "The Press" was open to the free expression of opinions—even of opinions with which the Editor cordially disagrees. If a censorstun .such as our correspondent evidently thinks should be set up were in force, wo are afraid we should have to exclude letters in which tho arguments of an oddonent aro stigmatised as "dirtv contemptible trash."—Ed. "The Press."] j