FARM 'LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIX, Issue 14682, 13 May 1908, Page 3

FARM 'LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

«, UNION'S SUMMING-UP.

At the Conciliation Board yesterday morning, in resuming his summing-up on bohalf of the workers in the farm labourers' dispute, Mr Thorn said that ho would, endeavour to prove the ability of the farmers to meet the demands financially. There was no clearer proof of the profits of farming than the fact that farmers were perpetually increasing their acreage, placing their sons on farms, and trying in every way to get a permanent grip on the land. J. W. Warren had started farming fifteen years ago with 320 acres, which had been increased to 800 acres, although he had said that it was not altogether the profits made on the smaller farm that enabled him to buy the bigger one. It. Evans said that up till six months ago he had held 4000 acres, and since then had bought or promised to buy 4000 acres more. He had started with 50 acres in 1873. He had added to his acreage because he had boys and wanted them to work the land. He had a right to put them where they could eurn a good living. He would not take up land for tho purpose of putting his sons on it if he thought it an unprofitable speculation. Mr Thorn went on to quote in a similar'manner 1 from the evidence of 1). Mulholland, i W. Banks, T. H. Shields, G. W. Leadley, George Size, C. M. Williams, John Sowden, John O'Halloran, John Talbot, J. A. Clothier, H. E. Peryman and William Shipley. Mr Evans had quoted the case of three Welshmen who had worked for him twenty-five years ago and had subsequently made £2500 on bush land in the North Island. He had added that thousands more could do the same thing, but had cautiously observed, when cross-examined, that money could ho made if men went hack into the bush. E. G. Staveley, of the Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, who/had been called by the employers as a financial witness to show how inopportune was tho present time for imposing any restrictions on the overburdened farmer, had, as a matter of fact, agreed with him (Mr Thorn) that the prices of farm commodities were still high, although they had fallen somewhat below that state which had had such an intoxicating effect on the farmers of Canterbury. Mr Staveley had said that he certainly did not anticipate any serious deterioration in the values of staple products. Wool was at an average rate. Fat lambs were from 13s 6d to 15s. All that had happened was a fall from a specially high price' to a good price. Mr Evans had then suggested to the witness that the financial stringency and the consequently increased rate of interest in New Zealand was due to various disturbances in the air, but Mr Staveley had refused to be side-tracked into any of these doubtful morasses, and had said promptly that the financial panic in America bad had a far greater influenco in causing the stringency than a possible award or anything that could be done locally in any way. Returning to the profits of farming, Mr Thorn said that competence was needed as much with farmors as with men. Many farmers had said that there were plenty of incompetent farmers, and some had even confessed frankly to the Board that they were incompetent. His Union held strongly that an employer had absolutely no right to penalise a worker because of his own incompetence. Turning to dairy farming Mr Thorn said he need not enter into the feasibility of an award, for one had been in operation in the dairies around Christchurch for two years past. Quoting from tho evidence of A. Redfern he stated that reckoning a man's ability to milk seven cows per hour he would be engaged in milking only six hours per day, and the other three hours, which would make up the Union's demands, could be given to sundry work. The annual profit per cow was £lO, totalling £220, and tho man's wages at 27s 6d would he £7l 103, leaving a balance of £l4B 10s. Allowing 10s a week for the man's keep brought the balance of profit down to £122 10s. Taking tho value of each cow at £7, the interest at 6 per cent on the herd would he £9, leaving £ll3 10s, out of which tho farmer had only to pay rent. In reality the milkers' services would only ho required for jtwothirds of the year, and hence one-third of the man's wages must be credited to the dairy farm and dehited to cropping or whatever the man was engaged on. This brought the profit on twenty-two cows to nearly £150 ; , and considering that they could be kept on 50 acres at a rent of 30s per acre the yearly profit on a capital of £l5O was £75. Mr Thorn dealt at with Mr Peryman's evidence on the point, and stated that Mr Evans had taken 100 acres of land at £4O an acre, on which he stated that 70 cows could bo cprried, or a cow to every acre and a half. Mr Peryman took land at the same price, which at o per cent worked out at a rental of £2 per acre, and stated that he required 20 acres for eight cows, or 2£ acres per cow. It was clear that Mr Peryman with 2i, Mr Evans with 1£ and Mr Wood with 14 could not all he right, and it was shown quite clearly from the evidence of Mr Evans, who was admittedly as experienced as anybody on the point, that Mr Pcrvman's calculations were absolutely worthless. In considering the ability of the farmers to pay the wages demanded attention must also he given to the increased, efficiency of farm implements and machinery as compared with twenty or twenty-five years ago. It was apparent that an enormous saving in working expenses had been effected. Mr G. W. Leadley, who had 850 acres under growing crops, had said that in tieing up sheaves there was a saving of 8s an acre. Mr Leadley had also said that any amount of saving could he made owing to tho development of machinery, and the wheat growers were going to bo the wealthiest men of tho future because wheat growing was not increasing proportionally to tho increase of population. Mr Thorn went on to quote the evidence of Mr HorrelJ that unless there was an exportable surplus of wheat the price could bo regulated in the dominion, and added that tho claim of the employers that it was impossible to regulate the price of farm produce could also bo disproved in tho light of common knowledge. Since butter making had been turned ■ into an industry by amalgamation and organisation the price to the public had been most certainly Tegulated to the benefit of the dairy fanners, and was fixed arbitrarily. <

Mr Jones: Mr Evans denied it. Mr Thorn: He did not deny it. Everybody knows that it is fixed. Continuing Mr Thorn said that if it was true that peas,, potatoes, wheat and other produce could not ho grown except when low wages prevailed the farmers should give up growing them. It was much more important to develop a high standard of living and thinking than to produce mountains of wheat, potatoes and other produce. Underpaid labour was never cheap and Mr Evans had stated that he could not produce stuff at less cost because ho was paying lower wages than MrM'Gilray, of Domett. In considering the factors' regulating the payment of tho wage earning class of tho community, a groat many farmers had shown lamentable want of common-sense and common knowledge, but Mr Leadley had given

a fair statement on the point, and had said that he made no difference in wages, whether he made a big or a small profit, or none at all. The wages were regulated in general in accordance with the cost of the maintenance of a man and his wife and the average size of his family, with special recognition of his special ability, and tho only point the Board had to consider was whether people should maintain themselves as mere labouring machines or as living and thinking human beings. It was untrue to say that the small farmer was unable to pay as good wages as the big farmer. Mr Borland, for example, with 15 acres under close cultivation, could afford to pay the wages asked, and was sure that others could do so. Mr Reid, the president of the Darfield branch of the Farmers' Union, had said that it was not right to differentiate. The objection that much of the work done on a farm, such as gorse-grub-bing, was unnecessary, profitless and unproductive was frivolous, for no man would then pay for it. Mr Thorn proceeded to deal with the objections made to the regulation of wages on account of the intermittent nature of the emplovment, and proceeded to quoto tho evidence of Mr Leadley to show that a man's ability to savo was absolutely irrelevant in regard to the regulation of wages. It had been said that the New Zealand country worker at present wages was better off than tho town worker or tho Australian country worker. As a matter of fact, the wages and conditions in Australia varied according to the disposition of the ployers, precisely as they varied in rvew Zealand; but it was quite irrelevant what wages were paid elsewhere. The crazy comparisons between town and country wages were not only irrelevant, but many of them were grossly misleading. Adult workers in the towns received considerably more, and to drag in a comparison which included in the case of the towns apprentices at 6s a week was absolutely unfair. Mr Thorn wont on to say that although ho had dealt with the matter to some extent when reviewing the balance-sheets, he intended to show the ability of Canterbury farmers particularly to pay the Union's demands. Tho fact was that in regard to wages, hours and holidays there was already a practical compliance by several employers with the demands, a fact that answereel the contention that the demands involved a wholesale increase of wages and holidays and reduction in the hours of work. Mr Thorn was proceeding to quote the evidence when tho Board adjourned until tho following day.