POINTS OF VIEW

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 59, Issue 4219, 4 December 1939, Page 5

POINTS OF VIEW

OPINIONS OF OUR READERS. FARMERS’ TROUBLES. Sir, —Your last issue of the Courier was well occupied with grumbling letters. Please allow me space for a few remarks. In the first place, can the business people of this town honestly complain of their share of business this last four years, and particularly this year? Secondly, do they realise there is a war on that may spread over the world? This is restricting business now, in many countries. Thirdly, why put all the blame on the present Government? Now here are some of the reasons for finances being low overseas: (1) Two adverse seasons, 1937 and 1938, causing disease and low production in dairy returns. (2) Excessive importation due to, first, progress in New Zealand private industry and public works, second, deliberate exportation of finances by-big financiers; thirdly, by deliberately forcing up prices by holding stocks, and general opposition to the Government by the Opposition all over New Zealand and although this opposition is a minority it is powerful. Now, Sir, is this to continue in war time or are we going to put our house in order that we may give our full attention to the enemy outside the gate? Surely when the Prime Minister calls on the country in time of trouble for co-operation he should get it from everyone. How is any government going to have a fair innings otherwise? The Opposition look through a telescope at their rights, and reverse it to see the Government’s rights. Political cheats, that is how they appear to me, they are so blinded with self-interest that they have lost all sense of fair play. And now a word in the farmer’s ear Is he grumbling in good faith or bad? Are his troubles real or imaginary? He says the man on Public Works is better off than he is. From the point of view on hours worked, yes; from the point of view in opportunity of wealth, no. The man on Public Works is shifted about and his costs of living are higher than a farmer who can produce at less than wholesale prices nearly half his food; other costs such as machinery and fencing, are spread over the years, and are accumulated assets. Labour cost is being reduced on farms as well as other industries, by machinery. Advertisements for machinery point that out; and they don’t work as hard to-day as they did 35 or 45 years ago. I worked on farms 45 years ago and I know what I am talking about. If this disturbance is not the work of the National Party, then why is Mr Preston, who is president of the Te Awamutu Branch, taking a leading part in it, and asking for a Dominion-wide organised movement? The idea evidently is to see what result the recent propaganda has had.—l am, etc., C. SMEDLEY. A STUDY IN “ISMS.” Sir, —It is highly amusing to observe the frivolous effort of a blind leader of the blind to distinguish between communism and co-operation. That quality of mind that ean see in communism nothing better than anarchism and insurrection is the most effective complex for preventing progress of any kind. A writer who attacks an economic syllabus, leaving out of account the psychological aspect, is retrogressive and should reserve his pen for the writing of legends for a kindergarten. What the world needs to-day is men who will risk their liberty for the sake of progress. There are those who shriek “ Dictator ! Dictator I ” if you suggest a revolt against an orthodox system. The less liberty they have the more they are afraid of losing it, and when they are dictated to by the boss in all their daily job, and by the landlord’s rent collector in their homes, and have all their opinions dictated to them by the millionaire’s newspapers until they cannot call their souls their own, they thank God they are free ! J. Riddell may call a rose by any naihe he chooses —the one thing he cannot do is to rob it of its fragrance. With his political master he may shout socialism, communism, internationalism, syndicalism, fabianism, or any other ism calculated by their enemies to conceal the corruption of feudalism and capitalism. This cry of “Wolf I Wolf ! ” is fast becoming a whisper in the wilderness of moral and intellectual poverty that is powerless to postpone the day when at last and for ever we will cross the line between nonsense and common sense—the day we shall pass from class paternalism, originally derived from fetish fiction in times of universal ignorance, to human brotherhood in accordance with the nature of things and our growing knowledge of it—from political government to industrial administration —from competition in individualism to individuality in co-operation. ♦ Sir, I conclude, not with a schoolboy howler on the plural of propaganda, but with an ariom from the pen of Goethe, poet and philosopher: “ There is nothing more dangerous than energetic ignorance.” I am, etc., ’ DEXO. MASS MEETINGS. Sir, —Your correspondent, Ml- JWallis, has no need to regret the writing of my letter in this column of your paper on Wednesday last. It might interest him to know that on the afternoon of its publication, and within the short space of an hour, I had two telephone calls congratulating me on having the courage to express views which these people said they had often discussed and heard discussed, but which they themselves had never had the courage to put in print. Since then I have been congratulated by many others. At the conclusion of his letter Mr Wallis invites every farmer to attend the Farmers’ Union meetings and express his views. Wfell, sir, that is exactly

what I did ! It is only to be hoped that any farmer or farmer’s wife who accepts your correspondent’s invitation will get a better reception than I did. Perhaps Mr Wallis only welcomes views of a feathering nature. One reason why I left that mass meeting with a sense of futlity was this: I sat just behind a man who stood up and asked the chairman a question, which the chairman saw fit to delibertately ignore. Why invite questions if it is not intended to answer them ? If Mr Wallis thinks this will gain new members for the Farmers’ Union then, like the American, he has “ another think ” coming to him.

To x your correspondent, Mr James Millen, I would like to state the following views, which will clarify my criticism of the Farmers’ Union, on which body he says I am a little severe. At the outbreak of war Mr Nash and his Government called on the farmers for increased production, saying that every farm must be regarded as a potential munition factory, butter being as important as guns. But who ever heard of a munition factory functioning without equipment and money to assist it ? I know numbers of farmers who could increase production if they had the capital to bring in more land, money to buy the necessary manure and purchase the extra cows. If the Labour Government was truly .sympathetic to the farmer it would give him a guaranteed price that would enable him to get on with the job. How sympathetic this Government is to the farmer is clearly shown in the Herald report of Ist December, in which the following head-lines tell their own tale: “ Board Incensed,” “ Conference Indignant,” “ Farmers* President Resigns from Primary Production Board,” and last, but by no means least, to quote Mr Sinclair, “ The Government has failed miserably, and we are justified in saying the guaranteed price scheme has broken down under its own weight.” Viewing these facts in a sane light, how can anyone who is a supporter of this same Government be a leader and an inspiration to his fellow farmers ? This is my answer to Mr A. S. Wyllie. No man can serve two masters. It just does not make sense, and that is the whole thing in a nutshell. Before concluding, I have one thing more to say. To your correspondent, “ A W/oman Farmer,” I make only this reply: I do not enter into discussion with a person who uses a nom de plume.—l am, etc., ELSIE COVERDALE. WHY GET EXCITED? Sir—With all this talk, and some little excitement, about retailers not being able to get supplies, I wonder if it has occurred to them, or to the general public, that the import restrictions are really a blessing in disguise? It occurs to me that the restrictions have provided a very excellent opportunity for the poor long suffering retailers to get rid of a lot of stock that must have accumulated on their shelves right through the years. If they cannot sell fresh, up-to-date goods like some at least oi them do in normal times, they surely will bq able to unload stuff that normally would not be sold at all, even at bargain sale time. Did they think ot that happening when they kicked up such a fuss? Probably not. But now that I have directed attention to it, no doubt they will cease from worrying others with their little troubles, more fancied than real! —I am ’ etC ” CRITICAL. CRITICISM AND CRITICS. Sir, —(Having rubbed shoulders with men in various walks of life 1 have found very few who can stan.i up to criticism. It is something that wte all need, and if it comes from a friend so much the better. But the critic’s task is a thankless one. My best friend is he who tells me my faults” —so runs the adage. But it yarn value vour friend don’t criticise him. This question, however, has a wider meaning. Unless we are prepared to fate up to mutual criticism, haw dare we call ourselves democrats? Many in the community fail to realise this. Some time ago I was present at a meeting the purpose of which was to defend the right of Tree speech: The proceedings ran smoothly until one of the speakers happened to make a critical reference to Soviet Russia. He was at once howled down by “champions of free (speech.” We prize the right to criticise others; we revel in criticism when it is directed against persons and things that we dislike. But it is a different story when it is directed against ourselves and things that we hold dear. Toleration is our vital need. That is the acid test of the sincerity of our democratic principles.— I am, etc., B. OBSERVANT.