FREEZING WORKS DISCUSSION

Southland Times, Issue 23552, 5 July 1938, Page 4

FREEZING WORKS DISCUSSION

To The Editor Sir,—So your correspondent “Railsitter” read my letter through and through and came to the conclusion that I appeared to be under the impression that I had a monopoly of sound sense. Well if that is so and he is correct, my fault has most certainly developed through my association with the Farmers’ Union. He asks me if I am a socialist, if I belong to the socialist party, and, if so, to explain- just what I mean by saying, “While we did not desire socialization . . .” Now I believe I was voicing the opinions of the majority of the farmers, and the great majority of the farmers are outside and not inside the Farmers’ Union. If he had read as a farmer and not r.s a private monopolist puppet, my letter would have clearly explained to him my position without need of questions. But in order to provide for his lack of intelligence and the probability of my being accused of side-stepping, I will answer those questions again. Taking the last one first, just what do I mean by saying, “While we do not desire socialization” and so on. Continuing I explained that it was preferable to a private monopoly, and that if the executive would not support co-operation, which was the ideal system, the farmers should support socialization as being the better of the other two. Do I belong to the socialist party? No and I am not aware that such a party exists except in the imagination of the propagandist. Socialization is a remedy that has had to be applied in different departments at one time or another by every political party in office down through the years since the days of the provincial governments. Am I a socialist? Well to the same extent as a doctor is a butcher when he has to apply the knife in order to effect the remedy. Nor am I aware that our present Government proclaims from the housetops that it is a socialist party, but I am aware that the Farmers’ Union is a political organization and as the mouthpiece of the National Party is using the socialist bogey as a scare-all. Then “Railsitter” goes on glibly to say it would have been much better for the farmers as a whole if they had agreed to meet the board as representatives of the Farmers’ Union. “United we stand, divided we fall.” Indeed. Well for my part I prefer to fall with the cause I stand for. I will share no rail with him. Then he says that if some farmers think that the Farmers’ Union frames resolutions that are of more hindrance than help to the cause, why in the name of common sense don’t they join up with their organization and assist to make it shipshape? I have had that experience also. I was a delegate from a fairly large branch for a considerable time but found that being a delegate (no matter how large the branch) and a member of the executive were two different things. When the delegates began to increase in numbers there was an attempt made to deprive them of their vote. It was proposed to allow them to speak but not to vote. Again, quite recently, when compulsory unionism was debated, it was declared that many undesirables might get in and out-vote members of the present group. Then they pretend with their tongues in their cheeks to speak for the voice of the farmers. Why not call a spade a spade and admit it is a political party. Your correspondent then says that those who are aware of the history of the co-operative meat works in New Zealand know that I apparently have

very little knowledge of the matter. Here again it is a matter of who rules the roost. Any concern in the hands of those who prefer to live by private profit and under the rule of a Government which provides only for private enterprise and co-operation or anything else that will divide its profits among the producers, we all know, would be bound to collapse. If “Railsitter” can convince the farmers that I know nothing about this business he should at least be man enough to sign his name.—Yours, etc., norman Mclntyre. July 2, 1938.