FARMERS’ UNION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13890, 26 October 1905, Page 5

FARMERS’ UNION.

NORTH CANTERBURY EXECUTIVE. Tho North Canterbury Executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union met yesterday;' present—Messrs J. A. Pannett (chairman), T. B. Howson, J. O’Halloran, R, W. Lochhead,. G. W. Leadloy, J. G. A. Ruddenklau, G. W. Holland, W. Hall, D. Jones, W. T. Lill, M. F. Ryan, J. W. Prebble and R. Rainey. Air Ryan was appointed the executive’s delegate to the Union’s summer conference. Air A. J. M’Curdy, colonial secretary, wrote forwarding the following questions which the Advisory Board had decided should be submitted to Parliamentary candidates;—“ (1) Will you vote, under any circumstances, for lease-in-perpetuity tenants being granted the right of acquiring the freehold at tho original valuation, plus_ the addition of an. amount to equalise their payments (with compound interest added) with occupation-with-rignt-of-purcha&e tenants? (2) Will you- vote against any alteration to the present county franchise? (3) Will yon press on every occasion possible the necessity of Government assisting the Boards to further rural education.” The letter suggested that questions could be added by the executive or branches to make a total of five. Air Leadley xqoved that another question should be added—“ Will you vote that taxation through the Customs should be for the purpose of_ raising revenue and not for protective purposes?” Tho chairman said that, from the point of view of consistency, he would oppose the proposal. The motion was carried, and it was agreed that the four questions should bo forwarded to each branch in the district.

Remit® for discussion at the summer conference were approved as follow: Ellesmere Branch—“ That in the matter of education in country schools this branch is of opinion that bookkeeping ought to bo taught to all pupils, both male and female, and when considering the question of technical education book-keeping, though not technical, ought to have the preference, if any be given.” Greendale Branch—” That the executive should call the. attention of the Minister of Railways to the injustice imposed on country settlers by charging special rates for the railage of imported coal and timber, and that it should urge that all such coal and timber should be carried at a uniform rate, and that, if the koal industry must bo protected, it should be by mean® of a small import duty instead of the differential tariff now in force, so that consumers of imported oo'al and timber should contribute in proportion to the quantity used and not, as at, present, in proportion to the distance from a port.” Oxford Branch —“ That the subsidised South African shipping service should be continued on the understanding that the time of transit should be reduced to the shortest limit.”

The following remit from the Ellesmere branch was introduced by Mr ddowson:—“That Farmors’ Union flour mills bo bought or erected, one in or near each of the four centres of population in New Zealand, namely, Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, with the object of lowering the price of flour' and so allowing consumers to have cheaper bread, as the low price of wheat and the high price of flour leaves a larger ■ profit to the Millers’ Trust in New Zealand than in any other part of Australasia.”

Several members said that the time ■was not yet ripe for the Ellesmere proposal, and the remit was rejected. Correspondence in reference to the Workers’ Compensation Amendment Bill was received from the Canterbury Employers’ Association stating that clause 2, providing that workers whose rate of wages w r ais not less than 80s per week should receive a. minimum compensation payment of £1 per week for total or partial disablement,, would press more heavily on the farmer than on the city employer. ■ It wias agreed, on the motion of Mr Lead-ley, that the following remit should be submitted to the summer conference—“ That the . previsions of the Workers’ Compensation for Accidents Act, giving a preferential claim over a property, -ais against existing mortgages, be repealed, and that any claim under the Act should only hold good against the owner’s interest in anv propertv plus mortgages.” Mr W. W. Mulholland, of Darfield, wrote that a report of a meeting of the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers’ Industrial Union of Workers stated that action was being token to get an award of the Arbitration Court. Under the circumstances, it would be necessary, to have an organisation of employers registered under the Arbitration Act. It was resolved that the letter should he remitted to the Colonial Conference. The executive’s canvasser, Mr Bradley, gave a report of his work for the past month. Bad weather, he said, had interfered with the attendance at mootings which had been convened. A report from the Stock and Produce Committee, dealing with the question of woolbrokcrs’ charges, was read by Mr Hall (chairman). It was stated that the Canterbury Woolbrokcrs’ Association was willing to adopt the Melbourne rates; “.Receiving, classifying and so on -Jd per lb, equivalent to 3s lid per bale for greasy and 3s 9d for scoured wool; commission—2) per cent on the first £2OO, 1J per cent from

£2OO to £SOO and 1-i per cent over £500.” He formally moved that the executive should approve the proposal. He said that it was not a very large concession. Small owners would suffer a loss, but the majority of the growers of wool would gain by the change. Mr LiU said that he would second the motion pro forma, though he would oppose it. He contended that small farmers comprised the majority of the owners affected. The motion was lost. Mr Jones moved—•“ That Mr Hall should be asked to bring before the Woolbrokers’ Association, the practice that obtains among agents of charging full rates of commission on wool exceeding £SOO in value, if the lots are sold at more than one sale.” Tho motion was seconded by Mr O’Halloran, and was carried. THE HARVESTER TRUST. Mr J. D. By water, representing the International Harvester Company of America, interviewed the executive. Ho said that h© would be pleased to answer questions that might bo put to him. The company’s object was to reduce the cost of selling agricultural implements, and bring them to farmers as cheaply as possible. The company had no intention of buying up local manufacturers. Instead of allowing local firms to sell the company’s goods, it was going to sell them itself. That was where the trouble cam© in, he thought. Mr Leadley said that Ije thought that a good deal of unnecessary fear was felt by the local firms. As a user of implements, be wanted to know whether, in the event of local manufacturers reducing the price of ploughs, under new legislation, the company would undersell' them. Would the company, to defeat the New Zealand Customs, go to Canada or England, and . use cheap labour for manufacturing farming implements P Regarding the second question, Mr Bywater said that he did not know what his company would do. ■ He answered the other query by asking a number of questions concerning the classes of ploughs made in New Zealand and those imported. He did not see why the company’s prices should be raised. The company was quite satisfied with the prices it got and the profits which it got, so long as it could reduce the price of selling. Copies of a pamphlet issued by Mr Bywater were submitted to the executive. It was stated that in 1900 New Zealand firms had combined to advance the price of agricultural implements by 20 per cent. The International Harvester Company had not been connected with any similar agreement in Australia or New Zealand. Mr Bywator was prepared to show the original documents of the 1900 agreement to anyone who would call at his office. Mr Leadley moved a vote of thanks to Mr By water for hie and the information which he had given. He said that he was right in saying that the farmers would welcome fair, reasonable and healthy competition. The motion was passed by acclamation.

On the motion of Mr Leadley, it was decided that branches Which hod not yet discussed the question of protective duties in the interests of local manufacturers of agricultural implements, should be asked to deal with the subject in time to have their opinions sent to the summer conference.