WHEAT QUESTION

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16324, 23 September 1918, Page 6

WHEAT QUESTION

SOUTH CANTERBURY SUGGESTIONS. ISFSCIAL TO "TH* HUBS.") TIMARU, September 21. At a meeting of the South Canterbury executive of the Farmers' Lnion, held in Timaru to-day, the wheat question was again discussed. The chairman, Mr Johu 'lalbot, read the letter drawn up by the comruittea uppointed a fortnight ago to draft a letter to the Minister on this subjcct. The letter was as follows: 'The statement expressed in your letter that in your opinion farmers should have ample protection from outside markets and a reasonable period of guarantee, is very salisluctory, and wo trust that due elfect will be yiven to this opinion by tiie same duty being imposed tu wheat and flour imported lioin Australia as that country imposed on us. \\ heatgrowers pay their lull share of Government and local taxation, anil their foreign competitors should not be permitted access to our markets without contributing by way of import duty a charge bearing some proportion to tho taxes paid by the New Zealand grain producers. With regard to the clause in your letter suggesting proposals from wlieatgrowers, we fear that having in view the reception that previous recommendations have met, farmers will not be desirous of formulating proposals for dealing with tho future, more especially seeing that they are likely to be looked upon _ as having their personal interests mainly or wholly in view. As an alternative, and what we think might probably be a better plan, we would suggest that the Wheat Controller, with the Direc-tor-General of Agriculture, should be commissioned to enquire into and report upon such recommendations as may seem to them desirable and necessary both as to ihe price to bo paid for tho forthcoming crop and proposals for dealing with tho 191G-1920 crop. We are quite sure that farmers would give every assistance possible towards evolving a practical working scheme for the future, and although no body or committee of farmers could possibly effectively guarantee the sowing of a sufficient supply, practical suggestions for providing that larger areas of suitable land snould be devoted to wheat-growing would no doubt be forthcoming. To your intimation that the 7s per bushol asked for could not be granted, but that tho price fixed for the coming season was to be 6s 4d per bushel minimum, with n free market, you add that it may yet be possible before harvest to submit a scheme for a price that will meet with the approval of farmers. This seems to indicate the intention of, at some time before harvest, offering a straight-out price for wheat. The Government Statistician's figures, as published in the August abstract, give the season's yield of wheat as 6,761,249 bushels, which is less than half a million bushels short of New Zealand's requirements for the year. This would leave three and a half million bushels of the Government's recent Australian purchase to supplement the anticipated short yield of the forthcoming crop, so that no matter in what way the Government may deal with it, the disposal of these three and a half million bushels must fix the price of local wheat and therefore the promise of a free market is now impossible of realisation, and we aro of opinion, under the circumstances, that the Government must take over our wheat under some such scheme as that which worked out bo well this year. Otherwise chaos and friction will prevail. This being so, it is most necessary that the price to be paid should bo made known as soon as possible, and it is to be regretted that our proposal for a fixed average price of 7s per bushel was not approved by the Cabinet, seeing that it is well within the limit of a reasonable prioo compared with the greater increase in cost of production.- A satisfactory arrangement with respect to price would give confidence to farmors in making preparation for next season's sowing, and, as preparations for that work should commence next month, it is highly desirable that the Government decisions in regard to both this and next sea/son's crops should bo arrived at and! made known without delay. We notd your remark that special consideration will be given to bona fide ploughmen! for exemption from military service. Jt should be pointed out, however, that! the position, owing to depletion of farm labour and of farmers themselves, is most acute, and that, notwithstanding repeated assurances to the contrary, men really essential for farm work are still being taken from their farms for military service, and the conditions on many agricultural farms, therefore, arei such as to call for the most earnest consideration of the Government. Tho loss sustained by wheat growers through, the partial failure of several treasons' crops gives us special cause to join irt your regret that it is necessary to import wheat from Australia, and we would strongly urge that if will be inequitable and unjust if, when the present crop is ready for marketing, the imported wheat should be sold at prices calculated to depress the market value! of locally-grown wheat, and we therefore strongly press for an assurance that this will not be done, and that the price at which imported wheat will be sold against our own will be made known as soon a« possible. The imposition of reciprocal import duties.and I the replacement of farmers, and farm | and domestic labdur on the farms, are both essential to the preservation of I this important industry." ! Mr Manchester expressed the opinion! that they should have a guaranteed) price for fowl, wheat, in view of thel largo importation of such wheat from Australia. Mr Anstey said they would hare protection if they get the duty which thqy wanted imposod apainst Australia. The chairman said it would be difficult to fix a price for fowl wheat, it varied so much in quality. He couldi not see any way out of the difficulty. Mr Butler said that if the Government regulated the wholesale price they should regulate the retail price. Ha had heard of wheat being sold in WelllnPton.by a grower a merchant a<J to od, and the same wheat was immediately retailed at 9s per bushel. After further discussion it was unanimously agreed that the root of tho whole trouble was the unequal tariffs as between Australia and New Zealand. Mr Patterson suggested that instead of recommending as a committee of advice to the Government on the wheat! problem the Wheat Controller and the J>ireetor-General of Agriculture, theyf should recommend practical men, anil he proposed Mr John Talbot and Mr David Jones, the latter of North Canterbury. Mr Anstey pointed out that they had to consider the consumer as well as tho producer, and so it would not do to set up a tribunal representing only one side. They must have an independonti man who could weich tho ©ridence on both sides. The farmcucs had niado dozens of recommendations; but not one of these had been given effect to by the Government. Mr Trotter said the letter could noti be improved nt>on, and he proposed that it be forwarded to the Government as drafted. , Mr Bassett seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. TRENCH MOUTH. This dangerous and distressing malady iB very contagious, and should be guarded against. Users of cleansing Fluenzol are absolutely immune, as no harmful bacteria can develop in the mouth or throat when Fluenzol is used daily as a mouth-wash. Insist on Fluenzol. 1b 6d and 2s 6d. 4