THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16945, 21 September 1920, Page 7

THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

TO THE EDITOR O* "THE PRISS." Sir, —At the present time there is an agitation to compel the dairy farmers to sell tlisir. butter locally lower than the market price. No doubt, thoso of us who are family men should be pleased to have our butter at a reasonable rate. However, someone has said, "It is better to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, than fleo to others that we know not of." Many years ago when coal was selling at 2os per ton ex ship, there was a great agitation for the State to take up coalmining so that we might get it cheaper. Some wicked Reformers ridiculed the idea of the Government employing men at the Government stroke producing* coal less than private enterprise. There hflß been a decided increase 111 tho price of coal ever einco. Tho Liberal Government, to please tho Labour Party, went into tho business, and to-day woare paying here £5 per ton —that isj when we can get it. Also when houses * were let from 10s to 16s per week, the Labour Party again induced tho Liberal Government to go into the building business. As usual, men who thought they were far-seeing, got out of the building business and made for Australia, and other countries. Speculators "fought shy" of coal; mines. Houses aro more than doiible in value, and a house to let is becoming very rare. Then again, tho Liberals, to please tho Radicals* passed tho Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Tho city workers besieged the Court for an increase in wages, which, in most eases. was granted; tnus raising the cost of almost everything the fanners required. Farm labourers, like Lot, made for the cities. Tho farmer found that whereas he could grow wheat for 3s 6d and 4s (id a bushel, and produce sufficient for local requirements, and a surplus for export, came to the conclusion that wheatgrowing must be considered a thing of the past as a profitable concern. AVe shall come perilously near to no bread, instead of dear bread. The Reform Government is like a man at the bottom of a hill, beholding his opponent letting loose huge rocks. Ho is so busy getting out of ; the road of these rocks that it takes him all his time to remedy the damage they arc doing to the country. So that when agitating for cheap butter, I sincerely hop© that wo do not drive the dairy farmer to Glaxo, cheese, otcetera, and leave us not with ehdap butter, but with much dearer butter", and possibly no butter at all. . My conception of tho duty of a Government is to interfere as little an possible between employer and employee, producer and consumer, as long as they give each a fair dingdong go. and there is no foul play, and always help tho bottom dog.—Yours/ et0 '' . W. R. DEVEREUX. to thi editor or "tits raws." Sir, —With regard to the butter question, and the recent letters that have appeared in "The Press," Ido not intend to be personal, for it uses up valuable space in your paper, besides bearing very little on tho main issue. This latter can be briefly put as follows:— "Is the dairy farmer receiving a fair profit for his produce?" I maintain that he is, but it is next to impossible to prove it in a letter to the Press. Given a well-known dairy farm, and a signed statement by a qualified accountant as to the financial standing of the farmer, together with the net profits every year since 1914, and a conclusion may be arrived at.

I beg to draw your attention to tho following fact. In 1914, factories were giving 8d per lb for butter-fat: Tho average price ruling at present is 2s per lb; in the North Island it is even more. This is in contradiction to "Butterfat's" statement that he is receiving only 2d per lb more to-day than he did five years ago. As a rule, the dairy farmer's produco consists of:—1. Butter-fat. 2. Pigs. 3. Young steers and old cows. I have already stated tho riso in the price of butter-fat. Nos. 2 and 3 havo risen almost in proptortion. If any city man is anxious to get the exact!

" rise, let him compare the Addington stock market report of September, !; J!)13, to that of this week. Perhaps, « Mr, yo»« may be able to supply the m- • iormation at a later date I am sure i that it will be read with interest. I • attach herewith reports on the balancei .sheets of three dairy factories to prove J mv statements regarding the price of ( . buttei-fat. ' In defence the farmer will say :— "But the price of stock, manure, wire, etc., has risen in proportion to the price of dairy produce." Quite true, hut how much does the ayerage farmer liare to buy? The only man who suffers through this is* the one who has recently started, or who is about tocommence dairy farming. Ninety-nine per cent., of these unfortunates are returned soldiers. The man'who had a <jairy farm in good working order m | 1914, and who didn't go to the war, I need not spend much—if anything— nowadays in buying» wire, manure, or I lows. To show why is only digressing r tmd turning this letter into an agricul- •» tural article. Labour op. a dairy farm is certainly more expensive than it was in 1914, but I- think I am correct in saying that 50 par cent, or the "cockie«" do not employ any labour. As rule the family does everything. Tho - milking on shares arrangement has not altered' as far as I know, the owner getting three-fifths, and the workers two-fifths of the profits. Before concluding, I think that I should correct "Butter-fat" in his supposition that I am a waterside worker. Personally, I wish I was—or, rather, that I- conld do the work. "Dnforturately, I am a "wash-out," the # result of a too intimate acquaintance with, our friend the Hun. Spells of hospital in France, England, and New Zealand, have not been able to repair me sufficiently to. carry on with my # pre-war occupation—farming. Even if I was pliymcallv fit, I have not the money to purchase or stock a farm. The present cost of things makes this impossible, which, after all, is only another price which we' ex-soldiers have to pay for victory.—Yours, etc.,

DIGGER.

SOLDIERS' LAND SETTLEMENT.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —I see by your to-day's issue the Government annual return on dischargM'd soldiers' settlement. It is about time tlfe Government woke up and let the soldiers have a fair go against the civilians, that we fought for (many of us for over four Under present laws a civilian can buy a place to-day and sell it the nest, and make thousands out of it, and a returned man whose father has made huge war profits can buy land freehold and do tho same, and can get a Government .advance of £2500. But a poor man with a family, who has more experience than

any of perhaps, in farming, haß to go on to a bit of leasehold and stick for ten years tliero before he can sell his goodwill, and .he, in most cases, is stuck out in a bleak paddock with no shelter and two rpoms, for. how can he put up more when the Government allowance is £250, or was, when I drew my section (since increased to ' £350) P A Government official told me you are supposed to * have a certain amount yourself, but I have proof- that the Government let, me in with nothing but experience (for that I thank them), and if my wife and children have bad health where we are located, I don't see why I shouldn't he allowed to sell out for • as large a goodwill as I can get, to enable me to get into a more suitable business, and study my wife and children's health. Under present laws a settler is allowed to sell out, but not at an excessive profit, and it must be to a returned landless soldier. The Government ought to'•be pleased to . see a man do well that fought for them. But why sentence him to ten years' imprisonment, also his wife and family, in i an unhealthy place for " them? His luck in drawing a section ought to be worth something to him. Are the restrictions imposed because the Government have bought settlements above their value, and the majority couldn't sell out at a profit?— Yours, etc.. SOLDIER SETTLER. September 16th.