THE FARMERS' UNION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 18 July 1923, Page 3

THE FARMERS' UNION.

(To* the Editor.)

Sir, —In your Wednesday's issue appears some correspondence over tiie nom-de-plume of "Aristides," and shows only too plainly the narrow-mind-ed attitude of some of those individuals who seek to champion and lead, or rather dominate, the Farmers' Union. I would lilie, before entering on the different subjects discussed in my letter, to point out a few things that shows only too plainly the narrow-niilud-torted vision, as also his want of logic.

Sir, we will take first his statement i that "they don't belong to the brotherhood, and have no right to criticise." It logically foiioivs then that Sir Joseph Ward does net belong to the Heform Party, he has no* right to witx-isa Mr Massey's doings and vice versa. Now, sir, just take a'glimpse of "Aristide's" example, and you will see his distorted vision. Hq writes: "The political party I opposed, also with all niy, strength." ■• What right had he. to criticise a party, to which he did not belong when they would have welcomed .him .with open arms, and if. he did not like Mi* Leader or his policy, he would at any rate have had a say in the matter? •

We v»-:Il now take his reference to what he calls my attacking the union "in the back." Ax^parently the inference' is to my use of a nom-de-plume. If so, I must congratulate him on his courage in having to seek shelter behind a ps;iedonym himself, especially when'we are made aware of the fact that he was for many years secretary of a branch. -I am here reminded of a little yarn which is to the paint. A Soot (.said to be) had taken refuge under the bed, to be safe from the onslaught- of his wife. She stood by the side of the bed with stick, cheek and jowl, but only to be defeated in her purpose, for the Scot yelled out, nDo as ye may, youTi no break my manly spirit, for I'll no come out." This I use, not because of his using a nom-de-plume, but after haviing dorre so be declaims against mo, jience hi.s manly spirit.

Sir, let us now take liis statement, "let him (Nori-TJnionist) speak for himself," together with "what right has 'Non-Unionist to say what we should or should not do?" Here we see his lack of balance.. What right has the Farmers' Union got to circularise farmers, telling them it is up to them to join up? What right hav,e they to address meetings of dairy farmers at the annual meetings of 'their-respective companies and" tell them what they should and should not-do? What right have they got to favour the control and pooling of What I produce on the farm? In this I desire to speak for myself, at ,the same time -knowing

the minds of many "unionists" who are agreed on the subject.. Sir, having shown "AristideV inability to reason, I will proceed with the discussion, concerning the Fanners' Union, just making passing reference where necessary to his concoction. As 1 said previously, lam far from belittling any good work the Union is doing. 1 made no retereney to the farmers' insurance uocietios, as I have had no dealings with them. 1 only wrote of things with which i was more familiar, Jtnd which have been under my observation, some of which I know are detrimental to the Union, and if persisted in will cause it to die a natural death, haying outlived its usefulness. In further proof of'this you need only peruse tho report of a Taranaki co-op_ (a kindred institution) annual meeting to find out farmers' opinions, only 55 members—described as "live" though interested enough to put in an appearance. Now, sir, does this not n«iatly dovetail into the statement made in the Union appeal re the unsatisfactory state of it in Taranaki? Silence is not consent here; but disgust. Why, take the annual meetings of the dairy companies, and it is quite a common thing fco find upwards of a hundred shareholders present, and this where companies' operations^are limited to but a few miles. This shows, sir, in what farmers are interested, and thia is why the Unionists crave for the opportunity of addressing farmers at such meetings. How-be-it, I hope it does not eventuate, as it will only spoil what might otherwise be a good meeting. I think farmers' minds are quite made up in these things. My reference to the Meat Control Bill was occasioned, not because I "took a few old culls to the sale recently anu only got 30s or so," but because I saw rather nice cattle being soJd for 30s and less ; and it took a fairly good beast to make much over £3. 1 ask, where is the benefit derived from having a control board ? I never saw them worse before any board was formed. If prices are rising slightly now, are we to attribute that to the board? I can't see it.

About the Dairy Pool, I notice that I all reference to this is left religiously ! alone in*the "anneal" sent around to ; farmers. Why? Mr Poison said the ; Unfon stands for it. Well, then, why is it not stressed in the "apneal?" Agricultural Banks. —With the establishment of such a bank as that outlined by Mr Poison, the average Tamil aki farmer will not b e any better off than, he is now, for his land is already mortgaged 100 per cent. I maintain, therefore, as a way oat of the present difficulty the Agricultural Bank cannot claim general support from this district, but if, a farmer can get a longdated loan with sinking fund, the total rate of interest being moderate, he would be enabled - to" work his farm better, would increase production, and would all the sooner be able to pay off the other mortgages. Even if a bank as outlined by Mr Poison did become a fact, I doubt if any farmers Would be helped much, tiiat is as far as rate of interest is concerned. I remember that during last season when some correspondence was taking place in the "Sr-nr,'; private loan companies were maligned over the rates of'interest bew« charged. But, sir. from what I am told, that to borrow from a co-op, loan company one has to pay 10 peacent t:;niii)O'.;iid interest every three. months, r.r.d eonim:'ssion on any debts incurred outside tlie company. ' J ask, is this a sarnnlo of -an Agricultural Isank ? '

. Poli'tirs.—After all the statements I have heard made to the contrary, I am now informed- by "Aristides" that the Farmers' Union is out to.control everything, oven . the Government. Then why in the name of goodness does the Farmers' Union 'slander Holland, and iiis party? Why so many resolutions and deputations sent to Mr Massey and others to have the "preference clause" eradicated, whilst ''preference" and "control is indelibly stamped on the whole policy of the Farmers' Union? Since 1 have no right to criticise the Farmers' Union owing to my non-mem-bership, by'what form of logic does' the Farmers' Union have the right to criticise the Bed Union?—l am etc.,

NON-UNIONIST