FARMERS AND RELIEF.

Southland Times, Issue 21834, 11 October 1932, Page 5

FARMERS AND RELIEF.

To the Editor.

Sir.—l have read with absorbing interest the proposals put forward by Mr G. P; Chewings with reference to Farmers’ Relief appearing in your issue of the Bth inst. and have the following questions to raise as to the proposals:— No. 1. Does this mean that the farmer may neglect his farm, not perform his financial obligations and make money at outside businesses—say whitebaiting(?) No. 2 Are we to infer that the farmers have never kept adequate books in the past? No. 3. If arrears of rates interest etc., are to be cancelled in whole or in part, are we to assume that County and Power Board employees _ etc. are to work for practically nothing and that materials required for local bodies are to be donated by engineering and other firms for advertising purposes? Possibly this proposal presupposes the increasing use of aeroplanes as a means of transport making it convenient to cancel rates which are at present allocated for reading purposes. No. 4. Do these living expenses include the supply of petrol for the large expensive motor car which the farmer bought in the boom times? No. 5. Would the banks consider this proposal worthy of credit? No. 6. Would it not appear that this proposal would have the effect of permitting the farmer to incur greater financial obligations—a somewhat doubtful advantage? No. 7. How will the banks carry on if proposals 5,6, and 7 are carried into effect?

No. 8. Would this proposal together with the one relative to the keeping of adequate books be the only indication that farms under these proposals would be run on business like lines? No. 9. If the scheme is to be carried into effect, why not apply it as from the beginning of the boom period, and credit the mortgagees with part of the big profits earned in such period? Let the great legal principle apply “He who seeks equity must do equity.” No. 10. Why not revalue the land etc. now and assist in the promotion of financial stability? To sum up, is it not reasonable that if we are to support these proposals for the relief of the farmer, we must recognize that relief is due to the poor housewife in England—her husband out of employment perhaps in consequence of the financial collapse of New Zealand importing institutions resulting in their being unable to buy from the Motherland the good which her husband had been employed to make—who cannot pay her grocer for the butter and cheese she buys. So also we must recognize that relief is due to the grocer because his customers are not paying him and in turn to the wholesaler who is not being paid by the retailer. Would the New Zealand farmer give the wholesaler such relief?

Mr Chewings’ proposals are for the promotion of sustained inflation leading inevitably to financial disaster.—l am etc.

ELBOW-GREASE.