THE FARMERS' UNION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2513, 14 May 1902, Page 6

THE FARMERS' UNION.

TnE New Zealand Farmers' Union is — or perhaps we should say ought to be — rone of the most important organisations in the colony. The undue influence wielded by the labour unions required just such a buffer as the Farmers' Union is able to impose between rational and progressive legislation and the ultra-socialistic measures the labour organisations are too prone to advocate. There is at the same time a comity of interests between the two great political forces that ought to make a common platform feasible. While the labour unions are political in the first instance and social only in a secondary degree, the Farmers' Union ought to be economic first and political afterwards — that is to say, economic considerations affecting the interests of farmers should be the first concern of the Union. But at the outset of its career of usefulness the leaders of the Farmers' Union must avoid, as far as possible, the discussion of academic questions which cannot further the fanners' interests. Such a question as that of varying the jury system in the supposed interest of the farmer, which is included in the suggestions formulated by the Otago Provincial Executive for consideration to the Colonial Conference that is to be held this winter, is one of those that may be regarded as outside the scope of the Union's functions. Mr Ross, the Palmerston delegate, who remarked truly enough that it i.s a matter of difficulty to secure a verdict of guilty in sheep-stealing cases, supported his suggestion that in such cases half the jury should be farmers by quoting the Chief Justice as having said thai ia cattle, qc skesa stealing.

cases it was almost impossible to get a verdict. In consequence of this, Mr Ross said, the police were getting quite careless in regard to the matter, and would hardly go to the trouble of taking it up. We do not know whether Mr Ross was speaking from expeiiehce or hearsay, but we can scarcely believe that the police would shirk their duty in any case that was likely to * provide satisfactory evidence of guilt. The unwillingness of juries to convict in all cases except where the evidence is clear and conclusive of guilt may arise from a knowledge of the draconian penalties that attach to the crime of sheep or cattle stealing, and not from any inability to understand the evidence adduced. Surely the tribunal competent to try the most serious crimes is, however, equally able to deal with sheep-stealing cases. Mr Ross's suggestion, if carried into effect, would introduce the thin end of an undesirable wedge, and " packed " juries would not improbably become the disgrace of our law courts. The proposed change would imperil one of the bulwarks of the British Constitution, and whatever the New Zealand Parliament—all powerful as Mr Buckland jocularly declared it to be — might do in the direction of modifying the jury system as suggested, it is not at all likely that the Royal Assent would be given to any measure providing for such a radical alteration in the jury system. Although isolated cases may crop up in which a jury fails to do its duty, such cases are not common, and on the whole the present system of trial by jury is the soundest bulwark of the liberty of the subject under the British flag. The Farmers' Union would, we are satisfied, be better employed discussing matters of a practical kind than in beating the air in resultless academic discussions. There can be no objection, on the other hand, to the Union drawing up a schedule of questions to be submitted to candidates for Pai'liament ; but a suggestion which emanated from Mr Buckland in this connection need not be seriously considered. He said that " what they wanted from a candidate was an unqualified assent to their proposals. If a candidate quibbled he should stand down, and they would select one more suitable. Further, they wanted candidates to pledge themselves that they would vote on any unseen question that would crop up as the executive of the district to which they belonged instructed them." We have not the least down that Mr Buckland will be the first to admit, on reconsideration of his suggestion, that no man with a &hred of independence would enter Parliament under the auspices of the Union if he were to be burdened with the condition that he should vote only as it directed him. We hope the leaders of the Union will be discreet and that the platform finally adopted by them will be on broad lines, such as might secure the tentative adherence of any moderate candidate, for, after all, the interests of the farmers are not so very widely at variance with those of the general community. Any legislation that would benefit the farmers would be for the general good. We should be sorry, therefore, to <-cc the Union adopt a circumscribed policy. In dealing with the question of insurance, the Union is on safer ground. Tlio farmers •seem to entertain the feeling that they have to pay higher rates of insurance than the circumstances warrant. Indeed, in the opinion of the committee &et as io deal with ibs. matter ia Caoj.

terbury, the farmers are paying for the large fires that occur in the towns. So far the overtures to the insurance companies with a view to securing differential rates for the country districts have not been entertained. How far the contention of the farmers, as voiced in the report furnished by Mr Recce (who was the South Island representative in the deputation that interviewed the Underwriters' Association and Lloyd's representative in Wellington) is correct we are not in a position to say, but if it is well-founded we hesitate to believe that the insurance companies will unfavourably entertain any scheme of relief to the farmers that will not detrimentally affect insurance business generally. Unless some satisfactory arrangement is arrived at the Union Feems to contemplate transferring its business to the Canterbury Cooperative Insurance Company, subject to certain conditions being altered and concessions made. At least, so much is suggested in Mr Recce's report. It was, however, recognised by the delegates that the question is a large and difficult one to handle, requiring time, tact, and patience to bring it to a successful issue. There were several minor matters brought under the notice of the executive at its meeting last Tuesday night, but as these will be again brought up in conference they were merely " received." In connection with small-bird poisoning, the Agricultural Department has been communicated with, and has promised to seriously consider the question of giving a bonus for the discovery of an effective means of exterminating these pests. A satisfactory means of destroying the grain-eating birds has yet to be discovered, but up to the present time landholders have not made the test of the means at their command. Nothing like systematic poisoning over wide areas of country has ever been attempted, and until that is done the pest is likely to go on unchecked. Isolated ' action is resultless, as should the birds be thinned down over a small area otltws will speedily replace them from, the surrounding country. The resignation of Mr Glass, general organising secretary, leaves the Union to complete its own organisation, which can best be done from local centres. Mr Glass's suggestion that paid canvassers should be appointed presupposes an amount of apathy that surely does not exist. The Farmers' Union is an organisation that ought to commend itself to every landowner and country settler, and those alive to their own interests will not require to be urged to join.