THE FARMERS' FRIEND

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22466, 29 July 1938, Page 15

THE FARMERS' FRIEND

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TItESS. Sir, —The expression used by Mr Dalley, "the control of production," is, I think, rather indefinite. To bolsterup the capitalistic system of production for exploitation, it has been necessary in many countries ruthlessly to restrict production, even to destroy the produce but I am fairly confident that such a procedure is not included in the prospective programme of our Labour legislators. The control and cMrection of the marketing of our production in this country has been such a success that Mr Dalley would find it extremely difficult to prove to your readers that any resultant injustice has been done to the farmers concerned, or to any other section of the community. Referring again to the surplus in the Dairy Marketing Account, he suggests that the farmers should be the judge as to when it is necessary for them to have this money. On the whole, the farmers have received fair and impartial treatment from the Government, and it is inconceivable that a genuine plea of necessity would remain unanswered. Mr Dalley may yet produce last year's balance-sheet to clarify the position. A fluctuating income may, over a period of years, be sufficient to meet the expanses of the farming industry, but a steady income makes it possible for the individual farmer to budget in a wise and orderly manner. Farmers may object, as stated by Mr Dalley. tc being treated as children, but it must be admitted that a few of them are definitely childish in their demands for more than is good for them —Yours, etc., D. ROBERTSON. Oaro, July 27, 1938.

TO THE EDITOB OF THE PBES3. Sir,—l desire to thank Mr R. B. Dalley for the compliment at the beginning of his letter. From what I have heard of Mr Dalley I did not expect anything less courteous. I will, try to make clear what I meant by the percentage of the selling price received by the farmers. Under the guaranteed price scheme the Reserve Bank charges ,the Dairy Industry. Account H peri

cent, on advance payments. The Tooley street merchants receive less commission; the produce is shipped to ports nearer its final destination, and is regulated on the market, preventing gluts. This method results in i saving of many thousands of pounds. Last year the saving in marketing alone was £219,000, and the Marketing r>epartaieTi"t is -enabled to pay the producer a larger share of the value of his product because the banks, merchants, and speculators ha"ve received less. I admit that steps were being taken before the last election to reduce marketing costs, but I do not believe the scheme would have been so complete and far-reaching as that arranged by the present Government. There is a certain amount of hysteria at election time and it would be a wonderful country if all politicians kept all their election promises. In-answer to Mr Dalley's first point, I believe it is the policy, of the Government to assume control of produce when asked to do so by the producers, and when such control would benefit | those most entitled to benefit—the producers. Point No. 2: I do not know very i much about honey. I have heard of the beekeeper who kept bees, but in the final analysis the bees kept themselves and the beekeeper only robbed them. The Government has taken control of most dairy produce, solely for the benefit of the producer, and it is a significant fact that since the Government took control the wholesale price of New Zealand butter has been almost on a par with Danish. Previously there was usually a large disparity, and it can be safely assumed that this commendable position is the result of regulated marketing. The farmer still has control of his product; he can make his cream into butter on the farm and sell the product as separator butter, but most farmers prefer to send their cream to the factory, the product to be sold under Government control, because they will receive a higher price, while the grocers cannot get nearly the amount of separator butter they desire. Point No. 3: I believe it is the desire of the Government to return to the farmers, and all other producers, a higher percentage of the value of the articles they produce, and I do not believe such a policy would lead to serfdom, but will allow these producers to acquire much more private property than they have at present. Mr Dalley refers to butter being as low as 67s per cwt. The farmers were in a stato of abject serfdom at that time. Under the guaranteed price scheme the farmer is assured of at least a fair return for his labour. If the old method of marketing were in force to-day and New Zealand butter were bringing the same price on the London market, the farmers would not receive so much per lb for butterfat as they are receiving to-day, because the cost of marketing would be higher and the banks would be charging about 5 per cent, on advance payments instead of the H per cent, charged by the Reserve Bank at present. I am sure if Mr Dalley looks at this matter from the angle of more and fairer distribution of money to the producers, instead of distribution of money at the whim of vested interests, he will agree that control of production v.'ill not result in abject serfdom but in freedom for the producer to receive a higher percentage of the value he has created.—Yours, etc., G. W. DELL. July 27, 1938.

TO TUB EDITOR OF THE MESS. Sir,—Several of your correspondents who make use of these columns of "The Press" as a medium of propaganda and cheap personal advertisement —no suspicion of anonymity about them —are proclaiming the present trade-unionist regime as the farmers' friend. Assuredly, the farmers and members of the Women's Division of the Farmers' Union (non-political) may well breathe the prayer, "Save us from our friends," and ask: Was it a mark of friendliness to extort hundreds per cent, more land tax from t: - freeholder than the National Government did? Was it friendly to add 100 per cent, to the rural telephone rentals? Is it friendly to permit the rural housewife to be charged Id a loaf more for bread than is charged to the dwellers (mostly trade unionists) in Christchurch, Ashburton, Lyttelton, New Brighton, Rangiora, Riccarton, and Sumner? During the next week or so Ihe farmers will hear much about the "farmers' friends'" friendship toward the primary producer, and have opportunities of putting questions to the highest authorities; and, moreover, reflecting upon the basic truth contained in Proverbs XXVIII, 19: "He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of bread, but he that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough."-Yours, etc., qq^ July 28, 1938.