Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE FARMERS' MEETING AT OAMARU

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—This meeting seems to have "cut a lot more ice" than even the most optimistic wished. You deleted a slight portion of my letter replying to Mr Trotter, and, although Mr Brewster cleared the atmosphere a little in his letter in your paper of to-day's date. I must crave a little more space to go into details in reply to "Ex Reformer." He says I advocated that farmers should refuse to pay their taxes and their just debts. That is not correct. I suggested the opposite, and, speaking from a Crown tenant's viewpoint, said the farmers should pay their local taxes, and all other taxes thev were compelled to pay, and all the increased overhead charges in connection with the year's production, including interest on their mortgage if they had one. And. if after doing so a surplus still remained, they should pay their rent or portion of same as far as the surplus warranted. If no surplus was left after all other charges were met, I said we could only write and express regret there was no money to pay the rent. I still say it; and I want to tell "Ex-Reformer" I was not letting off a lot, of "hot air," so have no need to thank him for his forgiveness. It has been my view for some time that if the man on the land has to meet ever-increasing taxation and increasing overhead expenses, the extra cost of living, etc., the rental value of land is going to melt like snow before the sun. "Ex-Reformer" says I was very careful to advise farmers to pay their agents and their mortgage, and he adds, "I wonder why?" Here again he is wrong. I did not say their mortgage. I said interest on their mortgages. Surely if money is leM in good faith it should be paid for. Further, quite a number of the mortgagees are depending on the interest for their living in old age, and quite a lot are widow women. As to what I said about the agents, I want to tell " Ex-Reformer " now that I have no axe to grind. I have dealt with all of them, got good treatment, but had to pay for all I ever got up to the present, and expect the same in the future. But I do know how they have fared since the Adjustment Commission came into action, likewise the mortgagee, and the' Crown, too. for that matter. They all got it where " the chicken got the axe." The State was Lest able to stand it, and I am afraid if the problem cannot be solved, will have to bear the brunt of it again very soon. You will not get the agent taking a risk to pull his client through like he did before all this wonderfuinew legislation was framed to : get everybody:., out of trouble. Ldo not think "Ex-Reformer" realises the awkward predicament into which we are all getting. In one of his letters he says he will leave your readers to decide. Very good, Sir. I am not afraid of their verdict, though I appear to be branded first as an actor, then a revolutionary, and lastly as an inciter. A nice wholesome mouthful, and, if it is true, all I can say in conclusion is that I am not a very desirable citizen to live in the midst of a peaceful community like Oamaru! Thanking you.in anticipation for taking up so much of your space.—l am. etc., J. J. Hore. Tokarahi, May 13.

TO THE EDITOD • Sir,—Since the mass meeting of farmers at Oamaru many lettsrs have appeared in your columns in connection with it. Unfortunately the majority of your corresDonderits appear more intent on getting home . a political upner-cut than in solving the farmers' difficulties, and the tendency in at least one to introduce personalities and bitterness is greatly to be deplored. Such suggestions as "hate. Circles" are horrible to contemplate, and only go to show the divisions that exist among the farming community at a time when complete unity for our protection is so urgently necessary. I do not know how far Mr Trotter's Dolitical views go, but what matter if he represents a group " red" to the core pi-ovided they, as a minority group, do not succeed in forcing their views on the majority. If the opinions expressed on the sheep farmers' position, apart from politics, by some, of these correspondents are very generally held, it is evident there is an urgent need for educating the bulk of the farmers regarding the principles and possibilities of the guaranteed price. No attempt has been made to do this at meetings allegedly held for the purpose of discussing it. No time has been allowed for supporters to put their case, no general discussion held, and the opening remarks are invariably these: " The convenors of this meeting are opposed to the guaranteed price." No logical reason for such opposition is given, and the guaranteed price is envisaged as some vague monster that will drag us down to oblivion. A moment's thought will, of course, show how ridiculous this suggestion is. Sir, there is only one danger in the guaranteed price plan, and that is the failure of the farmers to unite for their common protection. The irresistable power of unity is well known. 1 appeal to farmers to sink political and petty strife and force the Farmers' Union to take a vote on the guaranteed price question, when the pros and cons would be more fully discussed Failing this, farmers could join up with the Guaranteed Price Association, which is working for this end.—l am. etc., lan J. Ross. Waihao Forks. May 15.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —Your correspondent "J. D." is amusing in his effort to evade the chief questions in this discussion, with his irrelevant and untenable assumptions. " J. D.," in his reference to my ability to differentiate between control of marketing by the dairy industry and control of marketing by the State, gives no answer to the questions as to who benefited by the increase of the exchange rate previously and who would get the commission out of the control of marketing by the dairy industry. " J. D" evidently finds great satisfaction in his own assumption that he scored a " bull's-eye" in his reference to " legitimate farming." But if he only knew who " Ex-Reformer" is I think that he would realise that he had missed the target altogether. " J. D." is inconsistent where he complains that I am unwilling to give your readers the names of my " fellow Communists " at Oamaru, and then uses a nom-de-plume under his own letters. I think "J. D." should develop a sense of humour. He states that I do not know what Communism is, and that I do not fully realise what I worship. If it is of any interest to "J. D." I Will

suite that if Socialism means the welfare of women and children, and that the teaching of Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount is to be made practical seven days a week and not simply talked about on one day a weeK, then I am a Socialist, and proud of it. "J. D." in his effort to throw the onus on Mr S. J. Trotter of advocating "revolution" is clever but not just. To incite others to break the laws of the land is contrary to the practice of good citizenship.—l am, etc.. Oamaru, May 16. Ex-Reformer.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—l did not. manage to pass the Sixth Standard, so please tell me if my reckoning in the following is wrong. If 90 per cent, of exports from New Zealand come from the land, and we have a guaranteed price for wool and other farm produce, who pays the guaranteed price? I say the farmer does. I think that is an easy one. Even a Third Standard schoolboy knows the answer to that one. If the farmers refused to pay taxes, would they be bigger revolutionists than trade unionists who go on strike? I would like Mr S. J. Trotter to answer that. Did not Mr-Savage, before he became Prime Minister, say taxation must be reduced? Is that how he got votes? I say, "hats off" to the Farmers' Union leaders and the farmers who give their valuable time and money to the running of the union. —I am, etc.. Tim. May 15. 1939.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT19390517.2.40.6

Bibliographic details

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23810, 17 May 1939, Page 6

Word Count
1,413

THE FARMERS' MEETING AT OAMARU Otago Daily Times, Issue 23810, 17 May 1939, Page 6

THE FARMERS' MEETING AT OAMARU Otago Daily Times, Issue 23810, 17 May 1939, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert