FARMERS’ UNION AND EDUCATION BOARD.

Southland Times, Issue 17788, 18 July 1916, Page 2

FARMERS’ UNION AND EDUCATION BOARD.

To the Editor. Sir, —In your issue of the 15th inst. there appears a letter headed "Farmers' Union and Education Board Elections,” over the signature of John Findlay. I crave space to briefly reply to the insinuations made re Farmers’ Union interference on matters educational. Judging by the tone of Mr Findlay’s assertions, it is quite evident that his usual cool demeanour has disappeared, and he has now discovered that his peace of mind has been seriously disturbed. First of all, he calls to task the executive of the Farmers' Union for circularising school committees, with the object of trying to see what a change of Government would do for them on the Education Board. The farmer is the primary producer, because without him nothing exists, consequently every possible inducement and encouragement should be given to stimulate the farming industry. At least a majority of our country boys and girls should at school acquire sufficient knowledge to enable them to successfully follow the footsteps of their ancestors, to aspire to the most noble heritage of their calling, and to Impress upon all the truth that the man who makes two blades of grass grow where only one grew before is more worthy of his country than the whole race of politicians. During recent years there is a tendency on the part of our rural population to drift into, the cities. Labour legislation has been accountable for making city life much more attractive than that of the country, with the result that many of our country boys and girls, led away by the environment and lure of city life, having completed their course of secondary education enter into competition with those of the town, preference in alt cases is given to country pupils,' by not only those who represent commerical interests, but also the industrial bodies.

The question that now arises is that the country is becoming depleted of the best, of its youth. Arc we to accept as a substitute the rejects from the towns. Recent devclopme.nts, with reference to technical instruction, as imparted in our schools, and particularly the technical college, will justify the assertion that the vast majority of members of the Board must be found guilty of inconsistency, owing to the fact that they approved of the substitution of horticulture for• agricultural instruction in connection with the duties administered by the agricultural instructor. Re Mr Findlay’s assertion that the Farmers’ .Union executive in their circular a bracketed remark in the schedule of duties, and asked them to judge the balance of the schedule accordingly, the paragraph referred to will bear repetition;—"No manorial tests should be employed, as in the absence of knowledge as to previous treatment of the soil, such tests are apt to be quite misleading.” Upon further perusal of the new schedule of duties, clause 6, including ail other clauses, I find permission is only given for liming and green manuring. I would ask Mr Findlay how can experiments be conducted upon these lines. Space will not permit that I should enter into further detail, but would ask all interested to make a comparison between the present schedule of duties and the former scheme as laid down by Mr Freeman, the same being approved by not only the members of the Board, but also by representatives of the Technical College, A. and P. Society, Farmers’ Union, and in connection with secondary schools approved also by the conference of A. and P. Societies held recently in Wellington. At a later stage the members of the Board for reasons best known to themselves and Without consulting other interested bodies deleted the most important part of the agricultural instruction. Our Farmers’ Union executive, through being represented on the Technical College, deemed It advisable to have an explanation demanded from the Board. With this object in view a deputation was appointed to wait upon the Board. Wc proceedod'to Invercargill only to be denied admission at the eleventh hour. At a later date we were received, but had to submit to the censor, or gag. The result being reported to our Farmers’ Union executive, it was then decided to appeal to the members of school committees for redress. Mr Findlay further states that many members of the Education Board have a sound knowledge of farming, and two of their number are well-known farmers from the etc. I would again ask a question: How many of those members credited with being possessed of sound knowledge of farming would, if they had to resort to farming as a livelihood, and begin as it -were at the bottom rung of the ladder, make successful farmers? Again, Mr Findlay asks if the executive of the Farmers’ Union think they art* entitled to representatives on the Education Board. Where do the sawmill hands, general labourers, and all the resi; of the class unions come in? Arc they not all represented at the present time by an M.l’, Quite apart from that there is another way they come in, viz., by annihilation, or total extinction, if they prefer to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. 1 will candidly admit that Mr Findlay is a man I have always held in the highest esteem, but in my opinion he has failed in his duty in so far as not having recorded his protest against the removal of the most important part of agricultural instruction from the former schedule of duties. The same may also apply to his friend, the other member from the back-blocks. Both are members of the Farmers’ Union, but who are determined not to dance to the piping of the executive. The latter member 1 presume is the same gentleman who signified his intention of declining nomination tor a county seat, hut eventually decided to contest honours for the city electorate. In conclusion 1 would refer readers to an extract of a speed) by Mr Phiipott to the Teachers’ Institute, reported in the Southland Times to-day under the heading of "The Need of Education for the Farmers.”— 1 am, etc., WILLIAM FORD. July IT, 1916.