NOTES ON RURAL TOPICS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2668, 3 May 1905, Page 7

NOTES ON RURAL TOPICS.

'■ Opponents* of tii© union - are still saying • - . that it is* of no account, ' The Farmers' and that it will shortly ' Union. eeaie to exist. lam glad l ' - "" to see, however, that -it still - has some strong and healthy branches in 1 Otagoand Southland ; " that the flag is still flying in the Ashburtori and ether North ; Canterbury districts, and that numerous i ' TSJbrth Island branches are alive and flourish- ' ing under the leadership of the energetio f and enthusiastic president, Mr 3. G. Wilson. - I have just happened upon a copy of a Auckland paper, the New Zealand • Herald, a few months old, and it contains ; a* slashing article 'upon the conditions •'.nd 1 prospects,- of the -union. - As I have said 1 in previous nptes, there is too much paro1 - cldal feeling prevalent among farmers, and ' ruany seem to thinfc that the sole purpose ' of the union is to enable- members to br«ng ' forward petty, matters or a local character, ■ whereas the main object is to enable farmers to "band 'together "for {he protection of tho ? forming - community' throughout .the colony,-' and for -"the' advancement of - agricultural and pastoral Interests. do not - seek to. obtain the^ passing .of selfish laws, entirely in ,qur" own "favour, and without consideia- ; tion for others. That -.sort of thing is^ done hy the'Tjsadfis and iJabour Councils, and • the Tnc-mbers 'of those bodies". seem' to think tfcafc'tte- colony was created for. them alone, ' and that no -other section of the community is of any consequence whatever. In one respect the members of the workers' ' unions set • the farmers a good example ; they appreciate the benefits of combination, " and are alive to the fact that when thousands of men speak as. one man tliey are > much more likely to get what they want. ■ They also pay up their subscriptions > promptly, and keep their finances in a L "healthy condition, while many farmers grumble and; growl at being called upon to contribute a few shillings per annum, although it is not one-tenth as much as* a 1 labourer pays to his union. . The writer of -the .article in the New Zealand, Herald ' is very severe when dealing with this aspect of the question He says that there are 1 too many members of the union who pay • their paltry subscriptions very unwillingly, arid cannot see the use of joining unless ; they get as many pounds back ibto their ' (pockets in a short time. They expect j '' tho officers to do a lot of work for the | union -without any remuneration, and to ' 1 endure all sorts of suspicion and mean abuse for what they do. "These are the ; "men who," he says, "are the real drag on unionism, and deserve lashing with scorn . ; and contempt." He thinks that such mea j are little better than those who are too j • miioerable to join the union, but are quite j 1 "willing to participate in any good that may result ; from the, united" efforts of others. -In.' 'this connection I may say that it is ; ' .not' to 'to wondered., at that the members of the trades unions hate the non-unionists. ; The members' pay 26s per annum, at the least, and 1 by means of their combination they have obtained substantial "benefits. They have obtained legislation by which better wages are secured, better accorn1 modation in their' workshops and factories, ; regular hours of labour, and more time ' for pleasure, to", say nothing of an improved 1 social status. Those who do not pay their subscriptions and will have nothing to do | ' with the .unions participate in all the bene- ] \ fits their brethren have obtained. This ' ' is by the way, however, and merely to show that there are mean -and narrow- • ' minded men in the towns as well as upon the farms. One of the reasons foi; farmers 1 combination is seen in the aggressive policy of the extremists among the trade unionists. They have formulated a most vicious and dangerous programme, and although we \ may ridicule their demands at present, we [ may in time to come realise the danger j to the farming community from these socialistic agitators and a subservient Go- ' vernment.

'. I ccc "by a Home paper that a rather ; unusual case has been heard Liability in an English County Court. ior Dangerous A farmer sued a neighbour Fences. for compensation for injury t received by two of his- cows . through being impaled on a fence erected i between his pasture and that of his neighs Jbour. The fence was said to be of an r vnusual kind* for dividing farm lands, havf ing iron spikes projecting from the top. I The cows got leaning over the fence, and 5 were impaled on the spikes, tht injuries being so 'severe that the cows had to bo » killed. There is no special English law i applicable to such a case as this, and, of ' course, what is known as "common law" ■ ajjDliea alike t£ all pa,rt3 of th.3 Biitish do,- 5

minion. The lawyer representing the plaintiff said that the action was brought on the principle embodied in the wellknown maxim, "Enjoy your own property in such a. way as not to injure another man's property." Several farmers were called to give eviden c on behalf of the plaintiff, and they said that the fence was of a mrst unusual kind, and also most dangerous to stock feeding in adjoining paddodks. The defendant denied that the fence was a dangerous one, but was eventually mnde to admit that a horse and a cow of his own had been badly injured through getting on tha top spikes. The Judge said that in his opinion the fence was a dangerous one to cattle lawfully using plaintiff's land, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, with eoste I daresay the fence in question was an expensive one, and -the farmer who erected it probably thought at the time that it was a firstclass boundary fence, but it appears that the law does not allow a man to indulge in the erection of patent fences of an unusual kind without being responsible for any ill results to a neighbour's stock. Such a case is not likely to happen in this country, because farmers do not, as a rule, erect boundary, fences without first coming to some agreement as to the kind of fence to- be erected.

I once overheard two farmers arguing and disputing about these two Itea CloTcr members of the clover faand CoTTgrass. mily. They got mixed up about the various points of difference between the two, and, as is usually the case in a dispute, both were partly right and partly wrong. The botanical name of red or broad-leaved clover is Trifolium pratense; cowgrass, or perennial red clover,- has the same ■ name, with the addi> tiori. of the word "Perenne," which indicates its perennial character. Common red clover seldom lasts more than two years in a pasture, but cowgrass is more permanent. The last-mentioned rarely gives more than one mowing in a year, while tha red clover can always be cut twice under normal conditions of soil and rainfall. The following points in appearance serve to distinguish one from the other. The leaf of red clover is broad, and has the white spots clear and oval-shaped; the leaf of cowgr-iss is narrow and the white spot is- more or less faint, and in shape is drawn out to a point almost like sn arrow head. The stem of red clover is hollow, juicy, and hairy, all of one shade of green ; but the stem of cowgrass is solid and has a light streak of red running along the whole length. The flower of red clover is roundish in shape, and of a light pink colour, while the flower of cowgrass is smaller, i.ot so round, and darker in colour. The seed of the^e two clovers are alike in appearance, so that it is impossible to distinguish them in that way. Cowgrass differs from red clover in manner of growth, being taller, smoother in stem, and having a lesg fibrous and more penetrating rook It is also hardier and more drought-resist-ing than red clover, and in good soil gives a bulkier crop. It comes into flower later than red clover, and its solid stems remain juicy and eatable long- after the hollow stems of the other have become dry and useless. True coTVgrass seed is scarce and dear because it is a shy seeder, but it has a habit of layering if not fed too hard— that is, short .branches growing near the foot of the parent stem lay on -the ground and take root,' tnu's perpetuating the stock when the main plant dies out. .

It has always heen^feonsidered a Bad thing to keep the plough going Ploughing in when there is enqw on the Sn<m. ground, it being thought that besides making the land very cold the snow has a bad effect in other, ways. It may be that the ploughing-in of snow is a bad thing for stiff, clayey soils, but the same probably does not hold good in the case of fiee t calcareous soils, such as overlie much of the limestone country. It is reported that grand crops of grain have been harvested on land that was turned' over at the Southland ploughing match in August last, there being, as we know, two or three inches of snow on the land at the time. One instance of. this kind does not go to establish the fact that it is not harmful to plough snow under : it may. rather, bo the exception which proves the rule. AGRIOOLA.