THE WHEAT QUESTION AND THE PROGRESS LEAGUE.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18626, 26 February 1926, Page 17

THE WHEAT QUESTION AND THE PROGRESS LEAGUE.

TO TIIB EDITOa OF "iHB PRESS." Si'') Your reply to my letter of February i-ith cannot bo said to have explained, or to have explained awav, your allegation that, the Progress League had adopted an attitude of "silent hostility towards one of the most important of the province's industries."

I did not expect that it would Jo this,, for it is not possible to substantiate a charge that has no basis in ac *\ there 13 no hostility on the part oi i -e League to the wheatgrower, or :iU > other section of tliß farming community. What you have overlooked is the fact that tiic League _ represents virtually every interest m tiie province—producer and consumer, nierehant and manufacturer, city, town, and country. It aims to further mo\ements for the general welfare, movements upon which agreement—at * e^ st in largo measure—can be obtained. On many questions it cannot adopt the attitude, of say, the Farmers' Lnion or the Industrial Association, which represent certain interests only. These bodies, as v.'ell as other sections of the community, are represented on the Progress League, and it will be apparent to your readers that, on any question involving ft strong conflict of opinion, it would be neither advisable nor desirable that a body so constituted should, without opportunity for full Qisenssion by its members, make any declaration "of poJicy. Such a course would threaten that unanimity which is so necessary for the success of the League's work. It so happens that stepa were being taken to have the wheat question discussed at a special meeting of the Council of the League, but tho announcement of the Government's decision has now made that rather unnecessary,- and, even if it had not been possible to reach a decision, that would not have implied hostility. The necessity for unity to enable the League to undertake work of importance to the progress and development of tho province would ha.vo remained. Tliero are many questions which the League is compelled to leave alone, and there are many which it can tako _up for the benefit of the whole community. Its policy has beffli to concentrate on those things concerning which thero is general agreement. Into these movements the League throws itself with all the energy at its command. It could not possibly be successful in any ftther way, and the moment it lends itself to party purposes it 3 days will bo numbered. That principle is clearly understood, and no honest man who has any knowledge of the operations of the League and its method of functioning would suggest any other course. The League is always ready to consider suggestions, if practicable, but immediate action is not always possible and certainly affords no reasonable grounds for a charge of hostility. It would be as reasonable to expect the Council of the New Zealand Association of Chambers of Commerce to endorse unanimously tho attitude of, say, the Canterbury Chamber in regard to the wheat question, .13 to expect, the Progress League to agree at once to some policy on that subject, _ for the Couneil represents conflicting interests, and so does the League. But there are numbers of matters of equal, or greater importance, to Canterbury which wo can all agree and 011 which we can, with perfect safety, concentrate our energies. That is what we have done, and that is what we prouose to continue doing.—-Yours, etc., P. K, CLIMIE,_ Organiser. February .25th, 1926. [We refea to this letter in our leader columns. —-Ed. "The Press."]