THE SOUTHLAND TIMES WAY.

Southland Times, Issue 25362, 14 August 1935, Page 3

THE SOUTHLAND TIMES WAY.

To the Editor. Sir,—Perusing your leader in Saturday’s issue, I saw that you gave Mr Ransom quite a wordy write-up in defence of the wonderful administration of the Coalition Government. You certainly pulled your weight manfully with the usual bolstered up praise and camouflaged quotations, trying to hoodwink the unwary and unthinking section of your readers into believing that everything in the garden is growing well in face of the economic droughts and storms. You tried hard to convince us that the high exchange ramp was a just and a sane measure, and that although it, perhaps, didn’t give the farmer all the relief he required, it put him on side again and lifted him partly out of the slough pi depression. Now, sir, you further stated that the farming community when the slump hit New Zealand in conjunction with the rest of the world was the hardest hit section of the community. You didn’t go far enough and tell us that that state of affairs was brought about by the squeezing down of the public purchasing purse at Home and here. You didn’t enlighten your readers, in defending the high exchange, that a certain Mr Davidson, manager of the Bank of New South Wales was very much in evidence behind the move, that this gentleman came over here out of love for the New Zealand farmer, fell on his neck and expressed sympathy with him over the sorry sad losses he had to meet. Oh, dear no, that wouldn’t read tot, nicely. You didn’t mention, by the way, that the same gentleman and the associated stock and station agents were the ones that had the biggest slice of the cake. I have been and am connected with the • farmer and I have not heard one farmer who is up against it express the opinion that he is better off through the high exchange. The actual position (and deny it if you can) is that the stock and station agents got heavily involved, brought about by the gambling in land at the time of the boom. I well recollect and there are hundreds will bear this statement out, that these firms were getting a nice rake off out of commissions that their agents were on the road north, south, east and west, tempting settled farmers witn high prices and easy profit to sell and retire. Farms changed hands willynilly at increased prices all round, people went farming not to farm the land in a great many instances but to farm the next mug that could be coaxed along to part with his cash. This is actually what took place. The present mortgagor in a great many instances sold at an inflated advanced price on paper, the ingoing tenant was backed by the agent, the public purse was tightened up and here we are trying to patch up the result of a gamble of one section of the community at the expense of the other. I am not blaming anybody in particular. It was thought good business and we all had a finger in the scramble to get rich quick. The cleaning up of this mess has been left with the agents to attend to and for their mistakes the rest of the community are asked to foot the bill, and you tell us the farmer is the recipient of the ramp. No, sir, try again. You further endeavoured to show how the increased high exchange reduced his overhead costs. Did it? Where you get your reasoning from on this point we would very much like to know. It won’t bear the light of day. The exchange is loaded against us when we wish to import and, seeing the farmer requires in larger quantities than any other section of the community manufactured imports such as nails, fencing wire, staples, roofing iron, iron for the manufacture of implements, motor vehicles, tyres, petrol and other lines including clothing etc., where does your reduction of overhead come in? It proves conclusively how stupid you must take your readers to be. Your readers smile at your feeble attempt in criticizing Mr Semple’s letter in reply to your first attempt to belittle him on the accumulated London credits. What'Mr Semple said was perfectly correct. It cost this country nothing more than the cost of printing the necessary paper, which was backed by the New Zealand national credit, which crystallized that paper into real money. You tried to show your readers that what was the real security was the sterling in London. Nothing of the kind. What the promissory notes were backed with is the sunshine, rain, New Zealand’s fertile soil and her manpowers’ ability and genius to be able to produce real wealth, nothing more. These promissory notes were given the banks and Jhey drew notes reflecting the value against the promissory notes guaranteed. Is that correct or otherwise? For this privilege the people of this country tax themselves to the banks and pay interest on what they themselves produce. When will we wake up to what is going on, you try valiantly to hide this fact from your readers and the ridicule you level at Mr Semple goes to show every time you criticize that you do not have a grasp of your subject. Further may I add that you are up against a debater and a thinker far above the average, a man who does not quote his own figures but has made it his business to give his hearers facts and figures taken from the world’s best authorities. If I criticize you, sir, I do so because I feel you are misleading the people and that you are deliberately printing these statements for the sole purpose of keeping this present Government on tht Treasury benches. You would have us believe that this so-called Government is moving heaven and earth to assist its people and taking its courage in both hands to do so, when we all know very well it is scrounging every bob it can, and is simply standing by with nothing progressive to offer, only to ask us to look round another comer and when times improve at Home all will be rosy and well. No doubt Mr Forbes and Mr Coates will come home from their nice little jaunt and tell us that there is every indication of better times ahead and that the trade barometer at Home is on the rise. We have had four years of this threadbare piffle. You publishedthat statement on Saturday. How can things improve at Home with Britain s man-power only partly employed, when her former foreign markets, through the aid of modem machinery, have entered into competition with her and instead of being buyers are sellers. These are facts which you cannot deny. Primary production at Home is absorbing as many of Britain’s own people as possible and is making her as selfsupporting as possible and every year she will become more and more so. Mr Elliot told our contingent of experts and super experts, that British farmers were her first care and that self preservation was the first law of nature, and rightly so. It cost us somewhere about £lO,OOO to find this bit of useful information out and we cannot expect to make Great Britain a dumping ground for all Our surplus production at the expense of her own people. At a

price which will pay our producers here. No, sir, you will have to try and convince us with more solid facts than “We are round the corner” stuff and that when we give the Coalition another term it will straighten things out this time. Some of your findings put me in mind of the Maori who bought the new motor car. He ran it to a standstill and when it practically refused to function he took it back to the garage and said: “By korry, he no going very well. What about sending the mechanic to look him over.” All right. The mechanic had a look round and finally said: “We’d better jump in and have a run round the block.” This they did. They managed to get the car back after a lot of backfiring and spluttering. The mechanic said to the Maori: “1 know what is the matter. The plugs are dirty and your engine is missing.” The Maori promptly jumped out and ran to the front, lifted the bonnet and exclaimed: “You have another guess, boss, the engine he there all right.”—l am, Clt ” P. BATCHELER. Bluff, August 12, 1935.