THE FARMERS’ UNION.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4531, 6 December 1901, Page 4

THE FARMERS’ UNION.

The opposition to the Farmers’ I nion, as displayed by Mr G. Laurenson, in bis spoecli at Ashburton on Wednesday evening, is not likely to do the organisation any harm. As showing the farming community what it lias to contend with, the utterance or the zealous member for Lyttelton is calculated to do good. ‘‘Opposition is the life of trade,” so the antagonism displayed on this occasion is almost certain to stimulate the Farmers’ Union into greater activity and assertiveness than it has hitherto manifested. Perhaps the strength of Mr Lanrcnson’s attack was its apparent directness oi reply to certain mistatomeuts made by Mr Loadley,'who is evidently an accredited agent of the union in tlio Soiuu Island. While Mr Laurenson was successful in this, and while ho carried his audience with him, it cannot be asserted with truth that tho member for Lyttelton was .altogether free from blemishes similar to those ho disclosed in Mr Loadloy’s utterances. For instance, it is erroneous to imagine, as Mr Laurenson does, that tho Farmers’ Union is ‘‘run by hidebound Conservatives.” Conservatism and Liberalism are relative terms, and many of those who profess to bo followers of tbo Boddon Government as a Liberal Government are opposed to it because of its not being Liberal enough ; while others who are Conservative, have declared their adhesion to it, because it is now a safe Administration. By numbers of people fault may bo found with the aovernmont, still it is, nevertheless, a fact that it retains tho respect and confidence of tho majority. So it is with the Farmers’ Union. In its ranks are to be found mou who arc avowedly Conservative ; but among its leaders arc men of pronounced adherence to Liberal principles and strong allegiance to tho Seddon Government. It was, therefore, as unfair for Mr Laurenson to infer that tho Farmers’ Union was not a “respectable union” as it was incorrect of him to declare that it was “run oy hidebound Conservatives.” Tho member for Lyttelton was on much safer ground when lie scouted the notion that tbo Government was responsible for tho low prices ruling for wheat and wool. No Government can control the values of farm products, although it may provide greater facilities for production and increased advantages for the sale of such commodities. But these are accepted truisms by tho majority of farmers, and it was much like beating tho air for Mr Laurenson to assert that those who held different opinions talked “idiotic clap-trap.” Wo fear that the member for Lyttelton in several instances sot up bogeys of nis own creation in order to hurl avalanches of eloquence upon them for their destruction. Yet it cannot be denied that he made a good impression. His style and suavity would have more to do with that, however, than his subject or his matter. Indeed, at times Mr Laurenson was both illogical and inconsistent. Ho was a supporter of an. eight hours day for the lumpers on tho wharf, but ho was opposed to labourers on tho farm enjoying similar advantages. This may be a right view to take of this phase of tho labour question; but it lacks tho merit of consistency. Moreover, if seven out of every ten farmers support tho present Government, wherein lay the necessity for Mr Laurenson travelling to Ashburton? Why should he attack an organisation because of its alleged opposition to the Government, when, according to his own showing,’ 35,000 of its 42,000 members aro supporters of the Sodden Administration? The Premier himself lias scon, understood and accepted tho position. Mr Soddon has realised that many farmers support the Government, and if the proportion is not as great as Mr Laurenson has stated, the Premier is satisfied the farming community is not ungrateful for what ho has during tho past ten years accomplished on its behalf. Farmers themselves know that tho Liberal Administration has cheapened money, changed the incidence of taxation, reduced tho Customs duties, lowered the railway tariff, encouraged dairying, and promoted land settlement all of which is to their advantage. Numbers of farmers, however, while sotting all that and more on tho scale in favour of the Government, see that the cost of administration has increased, and that the incomes of the servants of the State have everywhere been raised, while the farmer’s revenue generally is now being reduced. That fact, and tho alleged sympathy of tho Government towards urban organisations, lias intensified whatever opposition existed among country settlers against the present Administration ; but it does not follow that tho vast majority of the farmers in the colony aro pledged to turn the Seddon Ministry out at the next election. Yet this is evidently what Mr Laurenson fears, and as a loyal supporter of the Government, he has laboured an attack upon an organisation which he designates as a “resuscitation of the National Association.” While working in the interests of agriculturists and in opposition to financial and political rings, the Farmers’ Union may be relied upon to see that it does not become the engine of designing politicians, who are ever ready to utilise any organisation to advance their personal ambitions. Notwithstanding all the opposition to it offered by Mr Laurenson, the Farmers’ Union, properly controlled and ordered with sagacity, will become, as its president, Mr J. G. Wilson, remarked the other day at Woodville, "a power for good in the land.” If it will quicken the political life of the farmer, and educate him in what pertains to his true well-being as an entity in ue State, it will justify its existence by serving a good purpose. As an antidote to city organisations, it will not be without effect, but we take it that the Farmers’ Union has higher ambitions, and it is to be hoped its leaders will not allow themselves to be diverted from, tho loftier purposes they hare determined upon accomplishing by any adverse criticism that may be directed against their worthy and legitimate organisation.