The Tariff Bill.

Northland Age, Volume 27, Issue 45, 9 November 1927, Page 3

The Tariff Bill.

A Few Pleasantries

Colonel Bell M.P.. and Farmers' Union.

Letter To President

Standing Committee's Reply At the time the Tariff proposals were put before Parliament, Colonel fell,- M.P, inundated P armers Union secretaries throughout the Bay of Islands electorate with telegrams, asking them for their views, etc., on the Tariff proposals. A number of ihese have already been published in the “Ag-\" Soi:’ of tj.e received from tne Sub-provincial secretary apparently did not please Colonel Bell, so he nenned ' he following latter the President which speaks . jr itself: Wellington, 10/10/27. President, bay of Islands Farmers Union. Dear biri-bmie three weeks or more ago I wired you requesting you' executive’s opinion of the Tariff Bill, and in your reply you stated that you would let me have ir after the Kaeo conference, on September 28. Thia not coming to hand, I wired you on 4th and 6th October, and in reply got two telegrams from your secretary—the last of a roost extraordinarynature. Wou'd you kindly peruse th s correspondence and let me know why speh a reply has been sent. During the past two months myself and other farming members have had many interviews with the Minister, on behalf of our farming constituents, with in most cases good results, and the action of your executive id refusing to assist by supplying

the information asked for, is not understandable. It'may be several years before another tariff bill is introduced, and no stone should have been left unturned to assist those members who in Caucus, and by deputation and interview have been lighting the cause of the primary producer. Against the hundreds of protests that have been sent to Ministers and members by the manufacturing and other interests, some of whom have gone so far as to say “that they have been butchered to make a farmers holiday.” Your early attention would be esteemed a personakfavour. Yours faithfully Allen Bell. Colonel Bell’s letter was placed before the standing committee it Kawakawa recently when a esolution was passed and forwarded to Colonel Bell as hollows: Opua, Bay of Islands, 31st October, 1927. Colonel Allen Bell, Sir,—A few days ago the Standing Committee of the Farmers’ Union (Bay of Islands SubProvincial District) at a meeting held in Kawakawa instructed me to inform you that the following resolution was carried unanimously : “That this meeting of the Standing Committee having reviewed the correspondence between Col. Bell and the Sub-Pro- . yineial Secretary, also between Col. Bell and the Kaitaia Branch Secretary, desire to remind Col. Bell that farmers having for so long suffered from maladministration of Dominion affairs especially as affecting the primary producers and realising the necessity for full co-ordination of their efforts, now speak on all poficy ntatters through their ap- ; propriate Executives. That be-

ing so the Sub-Provincial President requested the Secretary to reply to the correspondence as received .being aware that the Secretary as a member of the Provincial Executive had an intimate knowledge of the full information which had been submitted to all Parliamentary representatives, including Colonel Bell. The Standing Committee having perused Col. Bell’s letter of the loth October to the SubProvincial President cannot agree that the Sub-Provincial Secretary’s communications on the matter have been other than in accordance with fact, and appropriate.” I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, H.. M. RUSHWORTH, Hon. Sec. Fanners’ Union (B.O.I.) Opus, Bay of Islands, •3rd November 1927. The Editor, “The Northern Age” Sir, —In a recent issue of Northern papers, Editors were kind — or cruel —enough to print the speech ma le in the House by our Member on the Tariff question. The whole speech is radolent of the dilemma in which the speaker found himself in his pathetic attempt to make capital out of the mutually antagonistic aspects of the Tariff question. Whilst doing lip service in generalities in favour of fair trade > e defended the imposition of a Iditional penal tariffs and voted ai the bidding of his Party, for heavy additional burdens to be carried by that patient ass —the farmer. The most cynical part of his speech—l almost wrote foolhardy —was that in which he advocated

the increase in taxation on agricultural implements. The argument he advanced was that if this addition to the penal tariff were not made, the price of imported implements would be raised. Does Colonel Bell really think that his constituents would believe such rubbish ? If the multitude of implement makers abroad could combine to raise prices on a free market how very much simpler it will be for the two or three manufacturers of implement in N.Z. to combine and raise prices behind the shelter of the tariff wall. A few days ago one of my neighbour’s ordered a plough at a catalogue price. The merchant replied that he had one only at the catalogue price and that was on offer to another customer. If the prospective sale fell through he could have it but if not he could be supplied with the identical plough from new stock but “owing to the increase in the tariff” a charge of £9 over and above the catalogue price would be made. The fact of the matter is that the Reform Party has been caotured by tne vested interests which dictate the policy of the Government, and our member is admirably docile to the Party Whip whilst hoping against hope that the “flapdoodle”, with which his speeches are interlarded, will help to pull the wool over the eyes of the electors of the Bay of Island^. In circus circles the “stunt” is called, I believe, “doing the splits.” I am etc. H M Rushworth.