THE FARMERS' UNION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13480, 3 July 1907, Page 8

THE FARMERS' UNION.

THE BURDENS ON THE LAND. I j VALUE OF EXPERIMENTAL FARMS. I 1 [BY TELEGRAPH. — I'HKSS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington*, Tuesday. Mr. J. G. Wilson, president of the New iZealand Farmers' Union, in opening his i address at the annual conference, said they !could not expect an opinion on the new ! Land Bill, as they did not know the pro- ' visions. He suggested that the conference |should be held later, on future occasions, |in order to have all policy measures afifecting farmers before them. I Dealing with the graduated lax, lie estimated that the land was already taxed to ;the extent of '£2,000,0C0 per annum, as J follows—Land tax, £400,000: rates, 1£1,200, death duties, £80,000; sheep ;tax, £20,000; transfer stamps, fees of various kinds, and revenues from land, '£500,000: total per annum, £2,000,000; and yet the cry is often uttered: " In!crease the land tax," forgetting how many .'burdens the land already carries, I Mr. Wilson commended the Hon. R. MrNab's work as Minister for Agriculture. !" The encouragement he has given to his Agricultural Department and the enthusiasm with which, he attacks any subject ,connected with the education of the farmer |are especially gratifying," said Mr. Wilson. "We shall probably have in the near 'future the whole of our experimental stations taking in cadets, and they will act | in the North Island as the substitute for I Lincoln College. That the present experij mental stations are doing good "work, vjilu- ! able to the practical farmer, only requires • ..visit to them to satisfy anyone. Hut there is a difficulty in visiting the farms !in the Wellington province, owing to the train service, and many who would go, if i they could go and come in one day, cannot spare two days. It- is of little use having these farms unless farmers make iuse of them and visit them in numbers." Agricultural education and nature-study Iliad gone ahead by leaps and bounds dur- ! ing the past year, and if the union had never done anything else than achieve this object it would not have existed in vain. There was scarcely any Board in New Zealand which had not an instructor in agriculture and nature-study, working hard all the week over their whole districts. School gardens had multiplied four-fold. Strong opposition was offered by the speaker to any interference with the tariff for protective purposes and to the proposal to set up a Hoard of Commerce to regulate j.i ices. The President, went on to refer to the phenomenal prices obtained, for cheese and the disappointment experienced by graingrowers; also, the fairly good times enjoyed by those in the meat trade, in which latter connection he, anticipated a sharp rise in prices before the spring-fattened stock came into the. market.

J THE LIMITATION QUESTION. EXPRESSION OF VARIED VIEWS. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Tuesday. At the Farmers' Union < Conference 1 today, Mr. J. C. Cooper moved a Wellington remit:— . ■ -7 That this Conference, while considering the Government land proposals crude and unworkable, is not opposed to the principle of limitation of areas. ■ i" The mover said this was the first time I the union had ; discussed, the question -of limitation. So far'as freehold ' lands were concerned there had-' been some misunderstanding as to the reading of the platform on the subject, and.he advised the conference to alter the wording' to make it quite clear. It had been urged that aggregation of land was going on in the back blocks. (Ho admitted this had been the cafe to some extent, but if. had been necessary, in I the interests of those occupying the land I The Wellington Land Board had cut tip ! land in remote localities into such small lareas that it,was impossible to make a living. In better lands in the vicinity of iMastertou, , for example, there hud been a considerable disintegration. Throughout I the State there had been a large bursting up. 'the figures quoted by Mr. McNab, at Rakaia, to prove that aggregation was going oil were misleading. The valuations were increasing, but not the areas. The speaker quoted figures from the Year Book to show that the smaller holdings had increased in number to the efxteut of almost 6000 in six years, while in the holdings over 50,000 acres there had been a decrease of 13. The decrease Was entirely in freehold estates, (he large leaseholds, of which the Crown was the freeholder, having increased. The real test of the question was whether the Hocks of the country had increased or decreased. From 1886 to 1905 the flocks under 500 had increased from 6022, in 1886. to 11,545 in 1905: those between 500 and 1000 from 1118 to 3120; those between 1000 and 'and 5000, from 128 to 3084: . and those between 5000 and 10,000 had increased by 111; while t,he flocks between 10.000 and 20,000 had decreased by 25; and those in excess of 20,000 had decreased from 166 to I 97. |

THE DAIRY* INDUSTRY. In addition to this they had to hear in mind that the dairy industry, which was producing immense wealth from small I holdings, had had its origin since 1886. j Referring' to the graduated tax proposals, jhe objected that while farmers were quite willing to be taxed on their wealth, the proposed tax of the Government was apparently to be a general impost, and the very improvements which a man put on his land to increase its productiveness were added to the unimproved valuation and taxed. It was not the business of the Conference to indicate in what way limitations should he brought about, hut if some system could be devised which would not seriously affect either the money market or the working of the land, the farmers would be only too ready to accept it. (Loud applause.) After some delay the motion was seconded with apparent reluctance by Mr. McQueen (Southland!, who thought it was rather like physicking a horse that was all right. There was no harm in. carrying the motion. Apparently the. limitation proposals had been dropped, side tracking the issue. Mr. Maxwell (Taranaki) said he thought they were all aware that the Government proposals, if carried out, would : not benefit in any way the people of small means, whom it was desired to assist. As ait amendment he moved the insertion instead of all words after "'unworkable," of a Taranaki remit— That until all Crown anil native lands in the colony have been settled the union oppose any interference with existing titles, such as limiting the area that can he held of lands tor which unhampered titles have been granted, and considers the power of the Government under the Lands for Settlement Act is sufficient. The Taranaki executive, he said, was absolutely unanimous on this point, and he was certain the proposals would bring disaster on the country when bad times came. Mr. D. Jones (Canterbury) said the conference was. simply beating the air, since it did not know what the Government now proposed. He would like to sec the motion withdrawn. The President said the Levin conference had passed the resolution in view of the previous proposals of the Government. Disintegration had been going on rapidly. Mr. Pent, who was not present, expressed in a letter hie belief that no limitation should be placed on anyone's progress or ambition, but it could fairly take place in regard to the distribution of wealth over a certain amount at death. To limit energy or ambition of a man would be a direct' loss to the State. (Hear, hear.)

The President said he believed there was! now only one estate of more than 10.000! acres in Taranaki. Along the West Coast | iup to Taranaki, he could mention 20 large [ properties that had been broken up. I Mr. H. J. "haids (Levin) said the! {.question of limitation had never before J I been discussed in conference. He mighti be singular amongst the members of lie advisory 'board,' but he favoured limitation I of private estates. There were instances! in Wellington province of the aggregation; of highly-improved farms that could not. be I lin the interests of the State, at the same: < time the limit of £15,000 was far too small. i .! IX THE WAIKATU. ; .1 Captain A. Hell (Auckland), who .seconded ,| til..- amendment, said it was thought in his l ; province that the unoccupied Crown and illative lands should be taken up before they •.spoke of limitation of area. Disintegration! [was going on rapidly in the AVaikatn. It' •would not be policy for the union to lake tip! ja hard and fast stand against limitation. ! Mr. J. Forsyth (Pihama, Taranaki) did 'not think there was any great demand for •jliiiul in the State. It would be more senijsib'c to spend half-a-iinillinn a yea;' on roadling remote parts than in purchasing already , improved land. i Mr. W. Lissant Clayton (Poverty Hay),! slid there was no doubt that the Governimeut intended to bring in very drastic land [proposals. He rather favoured the principle of limitation at death. Limitation in in sense was desirable. i The President remarked that it would be a I misfortune to say that, they were against " limitation altogether. ■ Air. A. 10. Russell (Palnierstou, North) 'said theie was undoubtedly a. feeling . amongst the smaller men that the union 'was being run for the big men. Tho*c who; [were concerned in its management knew ; thai this was not the case. Personally, he I considered that the big man's cause was so .utterly lost in New Zealand that they were ■ : really fighting the cause of the small man. The cause of the big man would not exist in 150 years. Undoubtedly the big man was inot going to stay in New Zealand. A COUNTRY OF YEOMEN. '. For himself he hoped this would bo a ;country of yeomen farmers. He did not want to see petty little men who could not get along starving on their farms, but men j corresponding as nearly as might be with the old English yeomanry. If the confer-! ence did not pass the remit, the suspicion of j I the small men would be continued. (Hear, j hear.) Men who were decently well off icould sell out when the shoe pinched and 1 'have the country; but the, men on 300 or j 600 acres were left to bear the loudens | which were now put on the land, ami which j the towns would never fake off, and they ! would have a jolly bad time. Therefore, he •thought it, was wise that they should pass the remit and affirm that they did not wish to encourage large estates. That would still j ;further secure the confidence of the small men,' for whom they were really fighting. (Loud applause.) j Mr. Stewart ((Jingo) said they could not convince people that they were genuinely in favour of limitation if they were not prepared to approve some of the methods of limi|tabion. that, were proposed. | Mr. H. M. Saunders (Hawkc's Hay) said I they had arrived at the point when they: should say right out, whether they favoured j i limitation or not; but it was for the C Jo- j jvernment to say how it should be. carried! lout. Let them have a. straight out vote on I the question. j i Mr. Middleton (Southland) said, as perhaps the smallest holder in the room, he! I was utterly opposed to limitation. The financial aspect had been studiously evaded by the Ministers. There was no necessity! iwhatever in Southland for any bursting up. |He believed the Minister had an absolutely j open mind on the land question. (Laugh-;

ter.) ■ I Mr. Birch (member of the Advisory Board) said altogether lie did not believe aggregation was going on. He supported the original motion, and hoped nothing would be added to it. i Mr. Cooper said the history of other | countries was an alternation of periods ill which small farms and large holdings obtained. What they wanted was to prevent the possibility of aggregation of large estates. | The amendment was put and lost on the voices, and the motion was carried without dissent.