REPLY TO FARMER.

Southland Times, Issue 21288, 8 January 1931, Page 3

REPLY TO FARMER.

To the Editor.

Sir, —My object in replying to “Simple Farmer” was merely to draw attention to the exaggerated statements he inade, which were mainly directed at the railwaymen. I compared the concessions granted these employees with concessions made to those working in banks, comriiercial firms, etc. If "Simple Farmer” is prepared to sacrifice his farm for £7 per acre less than he paid fior it, I would suggest that he showed poor judgment when buying. However, if hq can continue to get men to work for approximately 3/9 per day, plus meals (that includes Sundays, as a teamster has his horses to attend to that day), he may yet manage to afford a holiday. The poverty of “Simple Farmer” cannot be general,-as I notice that quite large numbers are able to band together and tour the North Island, West Coast, etc., at different times, when granted a cheap fare by Railway Department. In any case I know the average farmer is not adopting the “dog in the manger” attitude of “Simple Farmer,” but is “bucking in” with the determination to weather the crisis. But then there are farmers and farmers. If a man has been on the land for forty years as “Simple Farmer” says he has and owns a freehold place he should, taking into consideration both good and bad times experienced, be in a financial position which would put him above any petty jealousy against any man getting any little privileges denied himself. This should surely apply to “Simple Farmer” getting the benefit of labour costing on an average less than 3/9 per day per man for three men. —I am, etc. “BROADMINDED.”