PARTY OR NON-PARTY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 47, 19 November 1907, Page 2

PARTY OR NON-PARTY.

FUTURE OF THE FARMERS' UNION

DISCUSSION .IN TARANAKI,

At a meeting last'week of the Taranaki branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, Mr. Jones (Stratford) submitted a letter lie had received from Mr. I<\ J. Jackson relating tD the Stratford Union, in which tlio writer said: "We havo decided to take no further part ill the work of the Union, during such time as the Union thinks fit to remain a nonpolitical body. I havo always been given t-o understand that the Union was formed principally to combat tho evil influences of the Trades Unions on tlie Government that may b? in office, but such has not been the case. The Trades Unions have pulled the political strings, and have succeeded in obtaining all they require from the Government, and will still continue pulling away at the strings until they get all they demand, to the detriment of the farmer, Consequently the light hao been one-sided and unequal. . . . The farmers have gained little or nothing by the Union. In my opinion, the Union lias become a laughing-stock, and the name a by-word within the Dominion. Therefore 1 maintain that the Farmers' Union to a certain extcnt:.must become a political organisation if it'is to be of any use to the farmers. Had the Union adopted a political platform from its incoption, it would be occupying a much better position to-day." | The Chairman (Mr. E. maxwell, Rahotu) said he did not think anyone would agree with the opinions expressed in . the letter. The Union was a political body, but nonparty. The Union had kept away from party politics, but lie believed it would oventually become a party of its own. It was quite true that in the early days of its - existence the 'Union had settled all questions from a party standpoint. But that was not so now. Ail questions coming before ■ the Union to-day were settled purely from the standpoint of the Union's interests. The Union's party was the farming community. It had gained distinctly by keeping clear of party, but tie would not say whether it might have gained' more had it boon otherwise.. But bv not being 4 party it .had, as lie- had said'-'pre-viously, gained. He took, ior instance, the Government's Land Bill, ilicre was a Bill that was entirely a socialistic measure. The Government nailed'their colours to the mast and intended to go in for land nationalisation. 'Tlie Union succeeded" iii having that Bill ■ withdrawn. Although tlie Amending Biil was not at all the Bill tlio Union would like, yet it absolutely surrendered the whole of the principles of the Government, and continued tho option of the freehold. That alono was a great proof of the influence tho Farmers' Union, had on the Government. However,, tlio, writer in question was not

° f the position of the Union, or what mn In ecaus ® :l )o would not then havfi Mr nl • /rm tS 1,0 ll3(I in tllG letter. r'nnnr<>l (Eltharn) said he believed the for the Tlnin 10 " Y a <- S V lilt !t would 1)0 bettcr H '1? to , l ? ecollle a political orga- ' '1° thought m dealing- with any n nrn? 1 Ull . lon should consider it from pioducprs point of view, and not from any political standpoint at all. letter WaS rcsolved to take no action .on the FARM. ~~ "