THE WHEAT QUESTION.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18571, 22 December 1925, Page 15

THE WHEAT QUESTION.

TO THJE XDITOR OF "THE FH*SS." Sir, —If the Government takes control of our wheat this season at an average price of 6s fid, what, happens when the local supply is exhausted? I presume that they will have 1o import say four or five million bushels at perhaps 83 to 10s. and sell it to the millers at the control price 6s 6d, so that the person who pays no direct taxation reaps all the benefit, and we wheatgrowers and others who pay land and income-tax have to shoulder the whole burden. I have been puzzled to understand that foolish three-years-eontrol motion, and the only conclusion I can conic to is that the supporters of it think that if they lose a Jittle 011 the price this year, they may likely reap a benefit in the next two years if we get bumper and the world price is low. But do they really think that any Government will be foolish enough to take it up? If the Prime Minister is half as shrewd as some people would have us believe, he will not be sr> anxious to commit political suicide. \Ve should have thanked "The Press'' for showing us what fools we are, and go strong for the only remedy —a reasonable duty on wheat and flour. Instead, we only get more angry and pass still more foolish motions. T do not hear of the Labour Party taking any part in the wheat discussion, but methinks I have heard some very loud chuckles wafted over on the nor'-west breeze from their Leader on the Coast, lours, eU '"' A YEOMAN.

TO THE ZDXTOI 0* "TH® PH-XSS. Sir,—Will you allow me to thank you for the splendid advertising you have done for the Farmers' Union during the last week or two. I do hope that the effect will bo that all farmeis will realise that union is strength, and that if we are to get anywhere we can only do it by having every, farmer in and showing a united front. If, as you sav, the meeting on \\ ecllast did not explore other avenues than Government control, it was because we felt thait the object of those who asked the A. and 1. Association to convene the meeting, was to discredit the Farmers' lmon, and I think we successfully countered that attack, but the haste to close the meeting did not giyo us the time necessary to get an opinion on other avenues. , I believe that every member of. the Union fully agrees with what you have written about the protection of the in-, dustry by increasing the import dutv upon wheat and flour. If* we could secure amnio protection and were Furnished with reliable statistics from time to time of the area in crop, the amount threshed, etc., so that we should be able to ascertain the market value or our wheat- and to obtain that YtllUC, then we should be as pleased as you would be to be free of control. Although you say we have not the virtues of courage or intelligence, yet we approached Cabinet two years ago,. asking for this protection (why did not you support us then?) and were told quite definitely that the Government would not listen, to any suggestion tha.t "would mean an increase in the price of bread, and I ivouM ask. vou to remember that this Government 'is a Reform one, the Government you have assured us is the friend 01. the producer. AVe would even now welcome vour assistanoo in welding the various branches of producers into a compact body, who could then approach the Government, which we have helped to put into offico with a substantia majority, to ask that the, loaf of bread should not he looked npon as the one article of food that should never increase in price, and to make the public realise that it is a matter of supremo national importance that this c( >™tiy should bo able to supply its people with the staff of life, and that wheatcrowers cannot continue to grow wheat for ever at a loss.—Yours, Methven. December 18th, 19'20.