THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1902. FARMERS’ POLITICS

New Zealand Mail, 24 September 1902, Page 47

THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1902. FARMERS’ POLITICS

.Wliat the attitude of the members of the Farmers’ Union will bo at the forthcoming general election is a question of considerable interest to farmers themselves as well as to prospective candidates. Some farmers are not satisfied that tho union platform will have the effect of reconciling the varying shades of political opinion to be found among its members. It is generally believed that farmers are difficult to unite, and quite as difficult to handle in combination with satisfactory results after combination' has been effected. But tho fact remains that tho farmers, under the direction of Mr Glass, have been organised. Their union is established, and it is certain if they can be indjuced to stand together they will exert a powerful, and we hope a beneficial, influence in the coming general election. Their platform is wide and liberal, and candidates of staid Liberal opinions will be able to subscribe to it with but few reservations. On the other hand, it suggests one or-two innovations which cannot be designated reforms, and it is questionable if some of them would accomplish what farmers expect from them in actual operation. For instance, it is implied that no Minister of the Crown should have the power of spending grants made for local works, and it is proposed, in effect, that Government grants should bo expended by local bodies. While it is in thorough keeping with the spirit or Liberalism that the powers of local bodies should he enlarged, it does not follow that an encroachment upon the authority of the Executive responsible to Parliament and the people should be sanctioned. If the Executive makes mistakes, if its policy is not in the opinion of the farmers what it ought to be, the proper course for them to pursue is to seek the return of men- who will spend the Parliamentary grants for roads and bridges as voted and not allow them to lapse. That is the constitutional procedure, and we do not see any reason for placing financial control in tlie hands of local bodies when tiiey are not responsible to the people, as Ministers are. We cannot believe that farmers as a whole, however dissatisfied some of them may be with the administration of grants for roads and bridges, will endorse this particular plank of their union’s platform.

Those responsible for the drawing up of the catechetical platform of °the Fanners Union are on safer ground when dealing with the desirableness of retaining the provisions of the Land Act under which land can he taken up on alternative tenures—namely, freehold, leasehold with optional purchase or lease-in-perpetuity. Provided the area of land to be held by single individuals is limited, no harm can come to the community by allowing settlers to obtain the freeholds of their farms; and by throwing open of Crown lands for settlement under any of the systems mentioned the State is allowing settlers to choose for themselves the tenuio that best befits their circumstances and prospects. There was a fair conception of the aspirations of human nature in the statement made by Mr J. G. Wilson, the president of the Farmers’ Union. “Give a man,” he said, “a rock as a freehold, and in ten years ho will have converted it into a garden; give thl same man a garden as a leasehold and in ten years ho will have converted it into a rock.” Tins is, no doubt, somewhat hyperbolical,

but it nevertheless expresses the general opinion held among some fanners with respect to freehold and leasehold property. The country as a whole will not, however, sanction a law permitting leaseholders to convert their farms into freeholds.

Tho Farmers’ Union ainis, not at being a party machine, hut an organisation to safeguard the political rights of its members. Its members may have differences of opinion on political questions, hut in most essential matters there will be general agreement, and it is towards the attainment of those objects on which there is general agreement that tho executive of the union ought to bend its energies. It ought however, to remember that farmers cannot accomplish all they have in view by one effort. Those who go slowly, go safely and farthest: and we are therefore inclined to endorse tho advice given to his fellow-members by Mr H. Buckland, tho president of tlie Otago branch of the Farmers’ Union, that “it would be unwise for the union' to rush into the political arena challenging all and sundry to battle. The result would very probably be disastrous. In any event, our action would make us ridiculous, and, as you know, nothing kills quicker than ridicule.” This is wisdom. 1 here is no necessity for the Farmers’ Union to ride a donkey and tilt at windmills, in the vain belief that it is the saviour of tho country. The Farmers’ Union, if its influence is to be helpful to farmers and to the country, must he characterised by that steadiness which inspires safety. If its members secure the return of a few candidates pledged to carry out their views, they will do well; but it the y by their united efforts educate the country to acceptance of their platform and secure the return of a majority pledged to the principles of the union, they will do' better. By doing so they will increase that sense of security which is the surest encouragement of industry, they will prevent much of the rash and unsettling legislation they so greatly dread, and promote, the general good. The Farmers’ Union has a splendid opportunity of justifying its existence in the general election, and by its attitude and behaviour in the coming political contest will it he condemned or praised.