LAND SETTLEMENT

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14982, 30 April 1909, Page 2

LAND SETTLEMENT

10 THE EDITOE. ' t , Sir, —Always taking a great interest in the land question, and being myself a ten-acre “ plotter,” I have not tins slightest liesitationln saying that both. Mr Taylor and yourself are guilty of : the merest twaddle, as judged from your respective remarks in Wednesday’s issue of the “Times.” How tbs settling of people on five-acre , plot® is going to alleviate the unemployed diffi«culty is best known to yourself. ThQ majority of townsmen seem to have the opinion that if they only had three or four acres of good land they would then bo above-all the cares and worries'of unemployment. _ Never ■; was there'a more mistaken idea, and I make bold to say that not one man in six ' who is farming ten acres or under oan show that he is making an average of £2 per week. Our staple products are wool, mutton, butter, cheese it and wheat, and to these only do we count for any added wealth. Five horses are file usual number that are worked in a team, and a farm that is not-capable of giving them constant employment is not worked economically. Tho flon H. M’Kenzie, of Victoria, told your representative the other day that New Zea* land was essentially _a country for small settlements. This, I* maintain, was pure nonsense, for the fact that we are, all told, only one -million, and the fact that'we are situate thirteen thousand miles from our market, is conclusive proof that he is entirely wrong. Put the people on the .land by all means, but give them enough, and, above all, see that they have capital to start with. .My - contention is that if a man is thrifty and is getting paid a wage that is commensurate with his output, he is much better off for being made to save sufficient, capital to enable him to take a farm without financial worry, the greatest of. alt worries. Some'- advocate putting the man with £2O or £3O on farms. Which, is the better, to have a country of pauper farmers or of farmers who are. able to employ labour and work •thenfarms as a business P _ Any further mcrease in the cultivation of local commodities would be so muoh waste or valuable labour; for, bear m _mma, ninety bushels of oats per acre will not, this year, pay one' penny of pront on the farms close to, Christchurch; and when the prices are for cauliflowers 4rt per dozen, potatoes 356 per ton, onions £3 r>er ton, and cabbages, carrots and turnips can bo had for nothing, there is but a poor look-out for further production. In conclusion, I- may state that only in the supply of mdk is it possible for a worker to benefit; jand I take it that we are within able distance of a much better and cheaper means of its distribution. 1 am. etc., b£jo qk y<(.KAIMAHI(We can understand that the ° oo PP*® r of a ten-acre section who confined his operations to growing ; wool and wheat would find some difficulty m making an average of £2 a week. Ed.* “ L.T.”)