Farmers' Grievances.

Otago Witness, Issue 1911, 6 July 1888, Page 17

Farmers' Grievances.

Bdituk Witness.— Sir : I did not see Mr M'Fadjen'o letter on tho abovementioned subject, but your loader, together with "01 utha's " letter which appeared ia last week's Witness gives one a good idea of Its contents, and, with ,v<>ur permission, I would like to sny a few words on the matter. You 63V it is absurd to oven think that respectable agen s would act so dishonestly as they ar« leprcjcnted as doing ; but the following frets may perhaps convince you that some of the actions of' agents (who if they aro not, represent themselves, as respectable firms, and are universally looked upon us 6uch) are not like Cesar's wife, above suspicion:— Mr A. sold through a certain firm a loS of oats to be delivered at the Bluff ; he kept a portion of his Co p and stored bt.em iv a building on the farm for four montln. 'J lie bays were all alike, being fillf-d in tho same, way with the same kind of oats, and there was no distinction made whatever between the two loi b ; but, according to the returns, th se Bent tq 1113 Bluff barely averaged four and ,a quarter bushels to the bag. whereas those that were kept at home and weighed out to neighbours in the spring weighed four and a half bushels per bag. This happened last season, This Beason, Mr H. Bent n portion of his oats to two firms. 3 he one firm tent back a return of four and a half bushels per b*g, whilst those sent to the second firm weighed a little over four bushels each .only. In this case there was no difference either in the bags, the filling, or the oats, all of them being taken haphazard from the same stack. Of course I know neither of these cases prove dishonesty ia the agent, but at the *ame time they look very suspicious Mr W. sent a large consignment of grain to Dunedin, After the whole lot had arrived there he recehed a note informing him that nearly 200 bsgß were damaged, and could be disposed of only at a reduced price. Being convinced that there was somothing wrong, and not being pressed for tlme.'ho took a trip to the city to put matters right. After making inquiries and a thorough Inspection at the s'tor« he found something under 40 bags a bit damp, I lie remainder being all perfectly sound and in goodcou1 dition. I npu d cite a dozen more canes that havo cune und rmy notice, but space and time foi bid me. Why and how those mistakes are made is best known t > 'hose who make them. Them is another mntter on which— although Mr D. Xeid. in a very feasible letter appearing iv la6t week's Witness, nearly exhau ted tho subject- I would like to say a word or two, nnd that is the Fair Kent Bill. In your articl* on it you say several public bodies will suffer greatly from a curtailed revenue if the bill is passed I fai' to se« where (heir revenue will be curtailed by the passing of tho bill, for thjs reason : If the present tenants of those bodies are compelled, or if attempts are made to compel them, to pay more than their holdings are worth, they must do one of two things. If they have a little capital left and wish to keep it, they will throw up their holdings at once, and leave them on their landlord's hands ; or they must do, as Mr Reid says, pay the landlord out of capital, and as the time that this system could be carried on ia very limited, the same thing would happen as in the first case. To re-let those properties the owners would have to accept of current prices, or, in other words, a fair rent, to that really the Mil is nothing more than a smooth and easy way of gettiug to a point that will have to be »eaehed ultimately by some road or other, either by this or one far more disagreeable and expensive to both parties concerned.—Yours, &c. Fakmbh.