The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1912. PRESIDENT WILSON OFF THE TRACK.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8187, 31 July 1912, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1912. PRESIDENT WILSON OFF THE TRACK.

The annual conference, of the New Zealand Farmers’ 11111011 was opened yesterday in Wellington The presidents address stated, as usual, that there was no unearned increment.

As usual Mr Wilson’s presidential address at the annual conference of the Farmers’ Union is an interesting and comprehensive communication. Unfortunately Mr Wilson was unable to be present at yesterday’s gathering in Wellington, but a copy of /the address _ before us gives a suggestive review of the development that has taken place in agriculture and makes a number of valuable suggestions regarding the conduct of this' industry, all of which seem to us worthy of attention. It is true, of course, that in these matters Mr Wilson rather labours the obvious, but after all there is good service to be done in this way, for the fundamental truths in reference to the scienoe and practice of agriculture require continual emphasis. The country is passing through a transition stage in the use of land, and just now it is very necessary that the farming community should be reminded of the great changes in progress. . Discussing the dairy industry, for instance, Mr Wilson insists upon the need for improvement of stock and methods of production, directs attention to portance of mixed farming, and places stress upon the wisdom of applying the latest scientific knowledge to rural pursuits. It is gratifying to hear of the president of the union retaining his enthusiasm so well from year to year. He takes an entirely nopeful view of the future and sees no reason why there should not. in the next ten years be the same ratio of increase in the value of our primary products as the figures for the previous decade reveal.

But Mr Wilson would not be Mr Wilson if he kept quite clear of politics. He invariably finds himself in that disputed field, and this year treads as warily as of yore.- Mr Wilson has shown quite exceptional astuteness in a position where grave mistakes might easily have been made, and his address of yesterday shows him to have lost none of that special quality. He pats Mr Massey on the back but avoids boisterous familiarity, expresses pleasure at' the of the freeholders,at last general election, and looks forward to on Act translating the “reformers’ ,r policy into law Deing one of the first measures passed by the new Parliament. He may possibly find himself disappointed on this score before long, but in the meantime is entitled to entertain the hopes of his “policy,” such as it is, being realised before very long.

Mr Wilson’s references to land are confined to questions of price and to a rather labored effort to prftve apparently that all increment to land is “hard earned” by the owners. This latter point is one Mr Wilson appears determined to treat in the manner Nelson once adopted towards a superior’s signal. He claims for landowners the right to all the increment by the extraordinary argument that “the human factor doesn’t come in.” Yet in one part of his address, in referring to the price of land, he uses language which seriously discounts _ every positive statement he makes in regard to increment being “hard earned.” Here, for instance, is a sample: .“Land . . .

began to rise in a most remarkable manner. One resident said, ‘Land about here is rising at the rate of £1 a month.’ This brought in its wake the speculator.” Just so. The land was going up in value for reasons quite apart from the labor and industry of the owner. The speculator’s “hard earned” increment went to its destinrd pocket, and the working farmer who was left on the land at the end carried the mortgage on his back for ever more. “This state of things,” reflects Mr Wilson, “is not conducive to good farming,” but, he adds with, a singular fatalism, “it is inevitable.” It is, of course, only inevitable under an evil system, and wo are amazed to find an. experienced, level-headed man like the

president of the union mildly deploring in one breath the speculative traffic in land values and in another denying the existence of an unearned increment.

Aft Wilson ought really to study his brief more closely if ho has determined to cling to the views 1 he originally formed on this question of increment, because if the system ho defends is to endure, something much more cogent than the arguments he employs will have to be employed. As he says the increment of land is ‘‘hard-earn-ed,” we invite him to prove his theory by the case of a property purchased twelve years ago at £lO an acre. It was sold afterwards at £l7 10s, again at £23, 'and once more at £27. It is not to be purchased now under £32. The total expenditure on the place in twelve years has not exceeded £4OO. Yet successive owners had a “rake off” of £975, £715, £520, and the man who now farms the section is waiting round for a “hard-earned” £650. The first- and third of these owners never did a day’s work on that land, and one of them at least has been waiting all these years for someone who can prove to him that he “earned” £975, his impression having always been that those who followed him were doing the earning.