The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON. FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1932. A FARMERS' AWAKENING.

Franklin Times, Volume XXII, Issue 58, 20 May 1932, Page 4

The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1932. A FARMERS' AWAKENING.

Office and Works: ROULSTON STREET, PUKEKOHE. 'Phone No. 2. P.O. Box 14 "We notning extenuate nor aught

set down in malice."

WE welcome the signs that the farmers of the community are waking up. Too long they have slept in the comfortable dream that they need take no part in politics—that Farmers' Unions must not meddle in party warfare. Some time ago we contrasted the relative advance in political power made by the workers and the farmers, who, after all, are the most important workers we have. The work-

I ers have, from the beginning- of their I struggles for a place in the sun, made no secret of their firm belief in political power, and they have made the fight for it their first line of attack. The great need for a firm and solid front for the farmers has never been better demonstrated than during the short regime of the present Government. The complete ignoring of the recommendations of the Economic Committee and the imposition of the exchange pool are prominent examples of their failure to realise the real position of the farmer in the community, and the need for keeping him at work for the benefit of the rest of the country as well as his own. If our rulers would start with the fact that the farmer comes first, and that if he is prosperous nothing else matters, because in such circumstances everything else will look after itself, there would be some hope for them. Of no other calling can this or anything approaching it be said. We see misguided people complaining that the farmer is over-pampered, but the nonsense they tender in proof never proves anything except the complete ineptitude of the persons putting it forth. The curious thing about the farmer is (hat he is willing to work without

remuneration if he is only permitted, and a more curious thing still is that so many people, and we may as well frankly include the present Government, will not permit him. To work for nothing he must have sufficient means to provide food and clothing, and his land must be left to him upon which to work. Tn too many cases the Innd is being taken from him, and

the Government Departments, or rather the Government-controlled bodies,

are the greatest offenders in this respect. No body controlled by the Government should think of putting off the land any farmer who is willing to continue his work there for his bare living. In other words, if the

farmer-mortgagor is willing to continue his operations on the terms that he receives from the produce his living expenses and the balance goes to the mortgagee on account of his interest, or both interest and principal. : then he should not be put off. We i i go further, and hav.s no hesitation in saying that to'put such a man off his farm is to fail completely to understand either the true interests of the mortgagee himself or the pressing needs of the community. And when the step is taken by a body that is controlled by the Government it is a betrayal of the confidence which the Government sought at the last election, and a clear indication that the machine wielded by the bureaucracy is too strong for the men who are supposed to be in control of it. It is no wonder that the Farmers' Union is talking of joining forces with the Labour Party, and that its members are threatening very strong steps to prevent the injustices thrust upon them, if milder means should prove unavailing. When a sane and reserved member of Parliament such as Mr H. M. Rushworth speaks out as he did at the Auckland meeting of the New Zealand Farmers' Union this week we may hope to see something done to waken up our Rip Van Winkles slumbering under the narcotics with which ■ they are dosed by the bureaucrats at Wellington whom they are supposed to control. "It is a mistake to think," said Mr Rushworth, "that farmers are not- having their farms sold over their beads at present. The time is overripe for something of this sort. If we start this we must carry it through to the bitter end. I would not have the slightest hesitation in going to extreme lengths to prevent cases of injustice such as are occurring." Mr Rushworth was speaking in support of a remit from the Franklin Sub-Pro-vince suggesting that steps should be taken to form a protection league to protect farmers from the injustice of being turned off their farms. Another speaker pointed out with perfect truth that there were cases in which bodies controlled by the Grown were "unmercifully squeezing its own mortgagees." We cannot say whether or not this scheme originated in the Franklin district, but it Was the men of Franklin who brought it before the parent body, for which they deserve the thanks of all who have at heart the welfare of primary production in New Zealand. To reduce a farmer's interest by twenty per cent when his income has been cut away entirely, and at the same time to pool and peg the rate of exchange against, him is to supply complete proof of ignorance both of the economic place of the farmer in the community and his present vital needs. Those who know no better may think that when butter ! recedes from say, fifteen pence a pound to ten pence, that the farmer is. i still earning ten pence a pound, Of course, he is doing nothing of the kind. More often he is earning nothing, or is losing. The fact that his profit inmost cases lies between the ten pence and the fifteen pence is the explanation. He has, that is, to make the ten pence, and often more, in order to pay his overhead costs, and he has to depend on the surplus for his bread and butter. This class of thoughtlessness is

not confined to the man in the city street, but it often flows all too easily from the pen of the man in the city editor's chair.