CRITICISING UNIONISM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12555, 22 April 1904, Page 3

CRITICISING UNIONISM.

FARMERS' OPINIONS.

RAISING THE SUBSCRIPTION.

We have received a considerable amount of correspondence regarding the remarks on the New Zealand Farmers' Union in last Friday's Herald. Usually farmers receive criticism with a phlegmatic calm, which suggests that they are quite content with their own way of doing things; but the comparison we made between the subscriptions cheerfully paid by trade unionists in the city and farmers unionists in the country appears to have touched some of our readers on a raw place. No doubt the very truth of the comparison is exceedingly painful to those men who are proud of the" occupation of farmer, and who look upon the city trades unionist very largely as a man who is trying to upset land laws. We do not like to hurt the feelings of fanners but we are compelled to say that in everything that goes to make real organisation and political strength, the most ordinary combination of artisans is far ahead of the best Farmers' Union, The leaders of the trades and labour unions quickly learnt that in any class of campaign money was the chief necessity and that next to money came organisation of members and implicit obedience to principles. ' The members of the Farmers' Union evidently believe that they can get something for nothinga most unfounded belief. There is no doubt that the Trades and Labour Councils are seeking to break up the freehold, and one- has only to read the resolutions passed at their recent conference in Christchurcb to recognise that they are politically antagonistic to farmers. There is also, no doubt, that the Trades and Labour organisations, although numerically much weaker than the Fanners' Union, are politically much stronger and will carry out their resolutions in spite of opposition. One of our correspondents very innocently asks why the farmers should increase their subscriptions to the union, and naively remarks that if the union cannot get along without copying the methods of the trades and labour parties, then he for one would stand out. Possibly the fact that the methods of the trades and labour parties enable thorn to wield more political influence than three times the number of farmers representing thirty times or three hundred times the amount of wealth ought to be a good enough argument, but if it isn't, then the sooner such a man stands out of the union the better.

The experience of centuries goes to show that the party with numbers, organisation, and money, always wins. The fanners of New Zealand are superior in numbers to any other body of industrialists. They represent moro wealth than all other industrialists put together. They*are of more importance to the country than any other people. The present and future welfare of the country depends upon them, and yet they have really no more representation in Parliament than the bootmakers, and not so much influence as the Typographical Association. The- fact that there should be any enmity between the. Farmers' ■ Union , and the trades unions is much to bo regretted, but when the latter use all their influence to bring about legislation, which is directly injurious to the farmer, enmity must bo expected. Tho trades unions recognising their power are trying to make the State the supreme landlord, and if they succeed there will be no independent body of voters in New Zealand to oppose them. No farmer reading the resolutions passed by the labour delegates at the Christchurch Conference can doubt this is their plan of action, and when one recognises that these trades unions have already as their representatives in Parliament men like Ell, Laurenson, Taylor, and some twenty others, more or less, of the same stamp, it is about time strong language were used to rouse farmers to united action. One of our correspondents asked, "What have we to gain if we pay £1 per year to the Farmers' Union?" The answer is simple enough. Political power, security of tenure, expenditure on roads and railways, agricultural education, reduction in railway rates, reduction in shipping freights, encouragement of rural industries, increase in the price ol products, decrease in thocosl of distribution. The farmer might more, naturally ask What shall we lose if we do not make our union strong?" and the answer to that would be tho negative to all the points just mentioned as probable, gains. If the farmers of New Zealand would subscribe liberally to their union, they could make it the most influential union in New Zealand. They could, if they secured their proper share of representation, put in at least half tho members of the General Parliament, and as a natural sequence would predominate ill the Ministry and in tho Upper House. Farmers, however, cannot manage such things by meeting in little wayside places and merely talking, or by getting their unpaid secretary to write numerous letters. They would have to follow once more the example of the trades unions and employ professional agitators. With a strong subscription fund they could secure the services of tho best type of political boss. They could make their most active enemies work as their best friends, and they might pull every political string by which the michinery of the Government is moved. Whilst the New Zealand farmers think that unionism is worth only a paltry two shillings a year they will not get much good out of their combination. If they want to run their union on successful lines they must follow the example of other political parties or business firms, and appoint first-class managers, but they will not get men with brains and energy, to devote any time to their work unless they are prepared to pay decent remuneration, and decent remuneration means some hundreds of times as much as the union is paying its present officers. A prominent trades unionist in discussing the Farmers' Union's twoshilling subscripton said that among the trades low subscription always meant inferioi unions and interior officers, and that the higher tho subscription the better and more powerful the union. Let the farmers of New Zealand raise their annual subscription of £1 per member, and try what money can ,