THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1924. SAFEGUARDS FOR FARMERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18762, 16 July 1924, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1924. SAFEGUARDS FOR FARMERS.

Faeming is the industry which supplies the most easily read index of New Zealand's prosperity. If yields are good and prices favourable, the whole country basks in the reflected warmth from the farmer's prosperity. When returns are poor or prices low, the entire community feels the effects of those conditions. With these facts patent to anyone prepared to appreciate them, it seems strange that any legislation or any regulations designed to safeguard the farming industry are immediately and vigorously attacked if they happen momentarily to clash with the interests of people who, in the ultimate, make a living only because the farmers continue to produce wealth. The announcement that importations of onions from California will be prohibited because of the existence in that State of foot and mouth disease has produced a typical example of this tendency. It might be pardonable to argue the merits of this precaution as a safeguard. Such a course could be allowed even without demanding that the disputants should know something of veterinary science, or the history, spread and incidence of foot and mouth disease. What is inexcusable is that the danger of its introduction, and the truly disastrous consequences which would inevitably follow Ub appearance in New Zealand should be lightly brushed aside as trivial in comparison with the paramount need for obtaining consignments of onions because shipping arrangements have been tentatively made. Foot and mouth disease is one of the worst of cattle plagues. The present immunity from it is a benefit which New Zealand should cherish as she values her most important industry™dairying.

The.' Department of Agriculture may be credited with knowing what it is doing in placing an embargo on Californian onions. The chief officer of the department is a veterinarian whose qualifications and standing in his profession make his opinion on the need for the move of more value than those of a thousand critics combined, especially when the expert knowledge of the critics is rather of onions asi a merchantable commodity. He knows that in Britain, within the past two years, hundreds of herds of cattle have been slaughtered and instantly incinerated, regardless of quality, breed or value, in the ..desperate endeavour to check this disease which had been imported from Europe despite rigid precautions. He knows that in the opinion of the world's highest experts this drastic proceeding (is regarded as the only measure to adopt when the disease once gains a grip. He has experience and expert knowledge enough to realise what would be the result if such a campaign were necessary among the,dairy herds of the Waikato or Taranaki. If by any neglect of possible precautions, the 'disease entered the Dominion, he and his department would stand condemned by the farmer who suffered direct loss, and the community which suffered with the farmer. They would richly deserve condemnation. Having in the recent past prohibited the importation of oats, maize, hay, straw and chaff from the United States, having refrained from placing an embargo on onions because none was being imported, the department has now added them to the list in the light of immediate (necessity. Foot and mouth disease ha 3 been sea-borne over distances greater than that between California arid New Zealand, by what means no one exactly knows. The obviouif plan, therefore, is to atop all possible channels of introduction. The result is an outburst of vituperation because sectional interests; are affected in the essential effort to safeguard the wide community dependent upon the prosperity of the farming industries.

The attitude adopted over the onion embargo is only symptomatic of other campaigns afoot. Certain interests have been working for some time to secure the removal of the duties on wheat and oats, especially oats. There (is admittedly a shortage of oats. Last season was a bad one, so that the supply of New Zealand grown grain was poor. Much that was sown throve so little that it was not worth threshing, being made into hay, chaff or ensilage. It is now suggested that because the grain-growers have had a bad year, they should lose the protection which would give them a chance to recover next season. The temporary removal of duty is proposed as a compromise. Grain, however, is not speedily perishable. If the duty were taken off until next harvest, enough might be imported and held in store to influence the market while the whole of the next crop was being offered. After what they suffered last season, the farmers would not be able to hold their grain until imported stocks were cleared. They would be at the mercy of the market. It should be noted that the agitation comes, not from the ultimate consumer, who might reasonably be

expected to. resent the duty, but j from those who handle the grain in i bulk; It is their influence ; which is being used to have the duty xe- ! moved. In the past the Government acted unwisely in the endeavour to protect grain-growing. The wheat embargo is the chief instance. Those who urged its removal contended that the tariff protection should be sufficient for the gram-grower,; The Herald that argument due emphasis. Now with the embargo gone, there arises an agitation for removal of the duties. This is going altogether too far. If secondary industries are entitled to the rich measure of protection they enjoy, primary industry can claim some degree of similar consideration. Yet when attacks on the tariff are made, it is almost always the protection of primary produce which bears the onslaught. The voice of the city is being raised against the country, whether the fact is realised or not. It is possible that New Zealand's production, of wheat and oats is on the decline; possible also that ultimately free imports may be the best policy, but so far the evidence does not justify the agitation for the removal of the duty. The grain-grow-ing farmer is entitled to it and the dairy farmer .is entitled to all the protection against foot and mouth disease the country can give him.