THE PRICE OF FOOD.
L . TO THE KDITOR. •- Sir, —Your editorial in the issue of >- tho 26th inst. discussing a type of i- “patriot,” hjs relation to the food ques- « tion, the morality (or want of it) of 7 tire present situation, and thp moral 1 duty of tho Government to discharge - their obligation to tho people is worthy a of tho attention of tho electors. "When one considers the fact that the people as a whole have been taxed for years in order to provide cheap money, veterinary surgeons, horticulturists, dairying and other experts, Trade Commissioners to find markets, subsidies to shipping companies to carry products to those markets, and to carry manure g free upon railways, as well as other ;- concessions, all for tho benefit of producers of food, one can only cxpiess >- disgust at the ingratitude of the , people who are holding the economic i pistol to tho heads of the population, J saying in effect: “ Yonr money, or you starve.” f Personally, Ido not think that the - small farmers are responsible for s rigging the food market so much as s some of the commission and financial agencies, which fasten themselves on the producers, and who claim to bo worthy of their hire as distributing agents. Certainly distribution is a necessary service, but,when the people who control that service are under no 3 statutory obligation to render it in 3 accordance with tho needs of the com- - munity but do so when they like, how ■ they like, and upon their own terms, ’ wc learn that they have tiia economic power to exact a service from the com- [ rmmity far in excess of the value of their usefulness, and indeed, con- ) stitute a menace to the general welfare. They appropriate the advantages of the State services to the producers as enumerated above, as well as the purchasing power of the money-wages of the workers in all industries, thus ’ nullifying the advantages gained through the laborious machinery of the ! Arbitration Court. I submit that in return for the ser- ’ vices tho community are compelled to ’ render to producers the least that 1 might bo expected is that tho 5 community shall be provided with food. I contend that it is time tho Government realised that they cannot talk much longer about the duty of tho individual to the State and expect to get . a response without undertaking to dis--1 charge the obligation to the individual. I commend this phase of the question 1 to the consideration of yonr numerous correspondents ro recruits for the 1 front. Our food monopolists would be roiif dering a much more useful service just now if they were in tho firing line at I tho front. Private enterprise lias demon- ’ strated its hick of morality—its utter uselessness in this matter; and tho time is at hand when tho people will conserve their own rights and underi take the distributing service themselves at a cost proportionate to the value of tho service. Candidates for Parliament would be well advised to devote less time to lengthy and socalled learned discourses about difficulties and more time to fiolntions.—l am, Deeds, Not AVokds. November 28.
Permanent link to this item
THE PRICE OF FOOD., Evening Star, Issue 15663, 30 November 1914
THE PRICE OF FOOD. Evening Star, Issue 15663, 30 November 1914
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.