The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1908. MINISTERS AND RURAL LIFE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 319, 5 October 1908, Page 6

The Dominion MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1908. MINISTERS AND RURAL LIFE.

Foe some time past, as the activities of the Farmers' Union have made clear, the agricultural community has been aware that tho Government is at heart antiagrarian, or at least unsympathetic to tho country settler,' as, with its known affection for Socialistic ideals, it could hardly help being. What has not yet received an equal recognition is the Government's astonishing ignorance of rural conditions, an ignorance that all the country tours of Ministers seem to have in no wise removed. Ministers are not quite so ill-informed upon rural affairs as was Mark Twain when he undertook to conduct the "agricultural column" of a newspaper. They know that turnips do not grow upon trees, but on- many important details of rural life they cherish some very curious beliefs. An excellent illustration of their urban outlook is afforded by the Heavy Traffic Bill now before Parliament. Apart altogether from its oppressive policy, this measure contains some outrageous absurdities. For example, let us suppose that a man riding a horse or driving a gig down a hill or along a road through a swamp meets a wool or timber wagon. He requests tho wagoner to pull to one side, and, under Clause 19 of the Bill, tho wagoner must do so, whether he must thereby drive into the swamp or into any •" fatter " at the side of the road. But Clause 17 strictly forbids him to bring any part of his vchiclo into contact with such " batter." Again, lie must always drive on the left-hand sido of tho.road, but Clause 16 forbids him to use the ruts formed by any other vehicle. Any countryman will understand that a wagoner, with tho best will in the world to do'

what, since it is prescribed in a Bill introduced by Dr. Findlay, must be quite feasible, will frequently find himself in an extraordinary dilemma. Under the schedule to the Bill a four-wheeled vehicle the tires of which arc 2-3 inches in width shall not carry more than half a ton, but a two-wheeled vehicle with 21inch tiros may carry one ton and a half. The simplest acquaintance with mechanics suffices to show that if half a ton is the proper maximum load in the first case, the proper maximum in the second case should bo about ono-sixth of what is prescribed, or one-quarter of a ton, which, even to the urban eye of a Minister, should be absurd. In any event, the average width of the tiros of most coaches and ordinary wagons is less than 2l inches. The public will not have forgotten tho Shearers' Accommodation Bill, introduced by Mr. Millar, and analysed in our columns the other day by Mr. C. Lewis, M.ELE. The general effect of this Bill may bo briefly stated as the compulsion of sheep-owners to'furnish their shearers .with first-class hotel accommodation —a varied menu, rich sleeping quarters, hot baths, and other luxuries. It was not in tho Minister's mind, perhaps, to effect a great transformation in the character of the shearers' quarters. His intentions were good. He only mado tho mistake of not learning something about sheepshearing and shearers. Tho Dairy Regulations recently framed by Mr. M'Nab are another example of what tho urban theorist can achieve when he sets out to apply rales to a' rural industry. It is to Mr. Fowlds, however, that the honour still belongs of promulgating the most ridiculous idc.a ever held by a townsman respecting tho mysterious things that take place out of sight and sound of tho city no'iscs. 'Wo have dealt, with tho matter before, but it must be referred to again in tho present context. He had been attacking Mr. Massey's warning that prudence was necessary in view of the condition of tho money market and the sot-back in trade, and he referred to the drop in the price of wool. He was not at all disturbed about it, and he gave his roasons:—

"Tho larger proportion of the wool revenue goes into the pockets of those who have been spoken of as the ' wool kings'—wealthy peoplo who, even in a bad year, have more money than they can spend in the ordinary course of business. A drop in the pfico of wool simply means that they have so much less money for investment. A fall in tho price of wool does not so directly and speedily affect the peoplo as a whole as does a depreciation in the prico of flax, because in the latter case tho money is passing almost directly into tho hands of a large number of workei-3 whose' incomo mainly depends upon the returns from that particular product." The absurdity of these statements is almost self-evident. In declaring that a fall in the prico of wool affects only those " wealthy peoplo who, even in a bad year, have more money than they can spcncl," Mr. Foivlds committed himself to tho doctrine that a rise in wool is almost an event to be deplored—at least not an event that should please an honest Socialist—since it benefits only the idle rich. In the face of the examples we have quoted of tho confidence with which the Government prescribes regulations to govern conditions of which it is so ignorant, it seems almost worth while appointing a Minister for Rural Affairs, whose duty it would be to keep his colleagues, from making themselves ridiculous.