The Primary Producer

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 200, 21 May 1931, Page 11

The Primary Producer

Sir, —Your correspondent, “Sane Labour,” has made certain statements in support of a very popular argumen t . tothe primary, producer is not the backbone of the country. If he had been good enough to bolster up his remarks with figures that do not lie, as a farmer myself I would have treated hie letter with more tolerance, but in case such gross misrepresentation may go down with more than an ignorant few, I 'feel, tempted to “bite,” and reply to this observant Bane-labourite, who has (he says) had experience with farmers, but obviously not with farms. In the first place "Sane Labour” uses an anomaly. May I do likewise? If 1 take up shares in a biscuit factory, and the biscuits go mouldy in the shops tor want of customers, I as a shareholder lose my money. On the other hand, if I and others lend money on land mortgage, and the fellow, who has been slaving his heart out for us, defaults with his interest payments on account of hard times, we can turn round and push our friend but and grab our money. The biscuit factory shareholder cannot sell up the chattels and security of the factory; yet because I am a shareholder in a land spec. I can take action for the recovery of my investment. I know the reason, but surely there is something wrong with the conditions of land investment? Then what of the workingmen’s homes that have been sold over their heads due to their owners’ default in times of depression? According to “Sane Labour,” it’ the working man cannot make a do of his house

investment, then it should go on the market, and someone else get a chance to try. This is absurd; but it is. part and parcel of my friend’s argument. Many farmers would welcome someone else having a try; seeing is believing, you know; farming never has been the picnic that so many people think it is. Some of our critics would not stick to the life a week, and in time- they would be the most ardent champions of our cause. I should like “Sane Labour” to mention what it costs a farmer to deliver lime 20 miles from the railhead to his homestead, and then to convey it over broken country to his outlying paddocks. The railway concession is a mere flea-bite hpaide if. How many farmers have the

beside it. now many larmew übw me ' use of this cheap money afforded by special Act’ of Parliament? If “Sane Labour” is bf the opinion that farmers have no reason to complain of the excessiveness of local rating, how would he contemplate \ a horse-power tax of 10/- a horse-power

to pay for the main highways, etc.? How many farmers have held their wool for even one season? Does it not strike our friend that farmers sometimes receive an. advance on their wool, pay bank rate on an overdraft, and then have to refund in the end when their wool has been finally sold? Then if a man is financially sound enough to hold his wool, where is. the bad business in doing so? t ... _ —KC<r>«A. T.nhAiii’” ctarra

In spite of what “Sane Labour” says I was not aware that farmers were dependent on the Agricultural Department for knowledge of farming methods. If the marketing boards had been more successful “Sane Labour” would have less excuse to growl. Our mail services are no more costly to the country than the picture shows in town, which are supported by even the working classes, who are content again to support America by attending them. We farmers did not tell the carrying companies to buy American lorries. On the farm I live on all our implements are of British manufacture, and I know of only one or two makes of implements that are not British. There is only one brand of wire worth having to my mind, and that is made in Great BritaTl«br,nld like “Sane Labour” to tell me

1 snouiu line oano uaiwur lv icu in what year our crossbred wool brought 2/7 a pound, and when it averaged that figure: also how many cars there are in New Zealand , and how many are owned by people not farmers. When he can answer all my questions he will perhaps be a wiser man and not be so ready to throw mud at the farmer, who is in reality his best friend. What he has to snv shout our national support of Ame-

say aoout our nauDuai Buppviu vx xmmcrica is quite true. But why single out the farmers? We are a minority in numbers, I believe, and I am quite sure that there are others, who offend just as grievously. I advise “Sane Labour” to find them.—l am, etc.,.i • ■ _ , THE KETTLE. . Pahiatua, May 10.