SMALL FARM PLAN.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20621, 10 August 1932, Page 8

SMALL FARM PLAN.

TO TUB EDITOR CV THE PKBSB. Sir,—lt appeart that the officers in charge of the small farm plan are having some trouble in securing suitable land for their purpose. Why this is so it is hard for me to imagine, since most of our farmers could use additional labour with advantage, and as this labour of, say, two.or three days per -week, could be got merely by giving a man the use of ten acres of land, and a few extras such as fhe use of implements and a bit of mutton or a bushel or two of grass seed occasionally, the farmer, in my opinion, would be on a good wicket. If the worker decided to walk oft, as suggested by "T.A.S." in The Pbesj on Saturday, the farmer would stand to lose very little. If the man walked off hia holding it would merely show that he was not a fit man for the job, and the farmer would be better without him. The Government could then remove the buildings or place another man on the holding. In the event of land rising in value, which is very unlikely, since land is too highly priced as it is, the difference in regard to a ten-acre block would be so small that the farmer would have no cause to : grieve over it. If the small-holder was 1 the right sort of man for the purpose, >' and conditions did not [ get any worse, the small farm would become more valuable as time went on; but the farmer would stand to lose nothing by this increased value. Regarding the cost to the taxpayer, a capital sum not exceeding . £250 will be needed for, buildings 1 and stock and sustenance allowance for a period of thirteen weeks. A good man with good land should not require more than that. Under the other unemployment schemes a married man gets an average of about 30s per., week, so that since we are likely to have the unemployed with us for many years, the small farm scheme should not cost any more per man than any other scheme in force at the present time, besides being of practical value to farmers, and making an opportunity for suitable men without means to become permanent settlers. Of course, as I have said before, unless conditions improve considerably, it will mean a mere hand-to-mouth existence for many of the small farmers, with little hope of buying their holdings at tho end of a ten-year lease; but even at that it should be more agreeable than being on relief works, and ultimately more profitable to the country. I am not an advocate of the plan as a wholesale means of land settlement —such is not the purpose of the schome as I see it; but as a means of helping tho few unemployed who are capable, and of giving suitable and permanent assistance to the many farmers who have more land than they can handle, and who have no money to hire labour, it should be i?iven a fair trial. No doubt'it will, Bince the Coalition Government has so decreed. The Opposition could not alter the Government's policy, so it is unlikely that private criticism will, at least, until some better plan is indicated The scheme put forw?"-'" by Mr Bernard Tripp is designed for the men with some capital; but they could be suitably settled under the provisions of the Land Laws Amendment Bill, which was introduced by' the Minister for Lands on May 4th. The group settlement plan advocated by Mr E. Earle Vaile in The Press of July 29th may be worth a trial on a small scale; but as there are millions of acres of land suitable for this purpose, why confine the holdings to five acres, which, as Mr Vaile suggests, would support only the family cow and two or three sheep? Some tinie ago I read in a Canadian newspaper that a survey was to be undertaken in the Prairie Provinces with the object of finding the best' .method of settling undeveloped areas; but so far I have not seen the results of tho project.—Yours, etc., ■* ■ . . , BAWBEE. Mayfield, August 7th, 1932. i

WAR MEMORIAL COLUMN FUND. TO THE EDITOR OV THIS PRES3. Sir, —May I' endorse wholeheartedly all that Mr A. W. Buxton says in his letter to you to-day P I am'sure that everyone who subscribed to tho Memorial Column Fund years ago would now wish it to be devoted to tlie relief and comfort of our returned soldiers. Surely some steps can be taken to ascertain the wishes of the old subscribers, and then the fund can be disbursed at once. It is needed.— "Yours, etc., AN. OLD SUBSCRIBER. August 9tb, 1932. TO THE EDITOR OS 1 THE PRESS. Sir, —I wish to commend Mr A. W. Buxton's letter on the above and think with him that the subscribers to the fund would gladly forgo the erection of a column. The necessary legislation could then be obtained enabling the money to be used for another purpose. We have one beautiful memorial in Christchurch and surery the sacrifices made by our boys will be of greater value to humanity if the fund is used to help those in need. Laudable though the idea is, is the column committee prepared to give up its idea of a material edifice? The Governor-General, speaking yesterday at the Technical College, stressed the need of high ideals and a spiritual influence. What a glorious opportunity for our local leaders to build our memorial in the hearts of the people! I suggest that the money bo invested, say, in Government stock, and the interest used to help those in need, not only for returned men and their dependents but for the general good of humanity and the perpetual honour of those who laid down their lives.—Yours, C 'ist CANTEKBUBY BATTALION. August 9th, 1932.