THE LEVIN STATE FARM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11059, 10 May 1899, Page 7

THE LEVIN STATE FARM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.— your issuo of last Wednesday a ginv-pmilcnt sigaiiug himself " Sancho Pan?./' expresses surprise that I, or some other farmer in tin House, should not liavo exposed the ridiculous reports as to the profitproducing results of the Levin State farm. "Stm-no Panza" is evidently not a student of Hansard, or he would have known that foi the la=t three sessions tho statement of receipts and expenditure in connection wit'i the farm has. 011 my motion, been laid on tho tahlo of the House. In 1896 I criticised tlci balance-sheet exhaustively, and concluded as follows: — According to the principle on which it is marie out. all a farmer would have to do to Eh my a profit would he to buy five hundred pounds' worth of cattlo one week, and sell them tho next week at the same price, and the whole of that £500 would appear as profit. That is what ha? been done hero. lam sorry to see that the estimates contain provision for a vote of anothoi £1500 for this State farm. I must protest against the hardearned money of tile taxpayers being used in this way. The farm should now have reached that stage whm it ought to be self-support-ing. It has cost the country £11,000. and, if it cannot bo made to pa.v, the farm should ho sold anil the money put, to some better and more useful purpose.' 1

Then last session, when the subject came up foi discussion, I again took the opportunity of referring to it, Mr. Masse (Franklin) was afraid that those who had spoken in favour of State farms bn-1 not much studied the subject. If honoura')!- 1 members would look at the estimates at rre-ent before the House they would find in connection with the State farm at Levin that last year they had voted the sum of £800 for it, hut £1998 had been spent. That was to saw it had exceeded the vote by between £1200 and £1300. In the second week of the session ho had moved for a return of the expenditure in connection with the Slate farm. The return, which had that day been laid oil the table of the House, shevpd that last year the expenditure on the State farm li.id been £2197 19s 2d, and the revenue (herefrom £1023 18s 3d; si that wo had lost for the vear on this one State farm about £1169 0s lid. Yet there were people in the community who recommended the estrblishinent of State farms as a cure for all tlio evils flesh was heir to. Despite the advantages of soil and position, misfortune seemed tc attach to this particular piece of land at Levin from the first, and he would recommend the Government to dispose of it as soon as possible. He understood that property is tip neighbourhood of the State farm had C' ne up in value, and if it were disposed of now the Government could get out" of it without much loss, but if it were retained the loss was likely to be very considerable. On a later date, when the particular vote has been di c cursed in Committee-of-Supply» Hansard .shows that I again called the attention of members to what was going 11, Mr. Mas?cv (Franklin) said that £1993 was expended last veer in connection with the State farm at Levin. He understood that £1080 was de.'ivcd as income, directly or indirectly. from the farm. Therefore there was a loss of somewhere about £900. Last year n vote of £1500 was passed for the farm. TTas (his cort of thing ti t'o on? AYhat use was the farm? 1' was of no use for experimental purposes, or for anything else. He moved that the item he reduced by £1. The .object of (lie motion was, of course, to g.'t t!u mutter discussed, and as an inchfa;i,in that the House disapproved of the ex|."itdiliire. Mr. SeiU'on, in speaking to the rnolion, attempted to show that the farm was jrakinp a pnitit, and endeavoured to justify the outlay, to which T implied: — Ifr. Ma e ~ev ■Franklin) said the statement of iHo Premier about a handsome profit was not correct. 1U could tell the Premier bow be mid have made a jiroßt out of it. li they had ".eft the farm in its natural stale tiieV mifht now have made a profit of .-5 or 1 u per acre, because l>v the settlement ill the "neighbourhood tho land had Bono up in value He said it was quite impossible to make the farm pay under tho present con-dTmi-i. The Hansard report being taken m Com-mii'.ee-of-Supply is condensed, but it gives a very fair idea oi what was sail on tho different occasions, and I hope will satisfy "Who Panza" that the Auckland members (because I am not alone in tho matter) have not been so lax as he imagined.-I am, etc.,