VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

Taranaki Daily News, 25 February 1935, Page 7

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

VIEWS ON CURRENT TOPICS CONTROL OF FARMER’S BUDGET. “TANTAMOUNT TO SERFDOM.” (To the Editor.) Sir, —By his speech in the House of Parliament on the Mortgage Corporation Bill, wherein Mr. Dickie defends the principle of budgetary control, one is given the impression that being in the confidence of his leader he feels himself called upon to defend a principle that although cleverly camouflaged is one of the underlying principles of the Mortgage Corporation Bill. From my position as honorary secretary to the Stratford sub-provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union, and elected by the North Taran-H executive to assist individual farmers regarding mortgage adjustments, I have had ample opportunity to study the effect of budgetary control and its effects in actual working. I can only say with a full - knowledge of the seriousness of my statement that practically every farmer working under budgetary control, as well as his wife and family, are the serfs of the mortgagees, and the mortgagee has in practical effect secured all their assets. By assets I mean the cash paid down at the time of purchase, improvements effected, stock and plant, also in some cases furniture and effects, including the bed the children sleep on. \ When once the farmer has been forced to consent to budgetary control he can never, under present conditions, regain his freedom, even though he may transfer everything he possesses to his mortgagee, unless he seeks the protection of the bankruptcy court, or the personal covenant is deleted from the deed of mortgage he signed. Mr. Dickie states that in many cases the mortgagee has generously allowed his mortgagor £3 to £4 a week to live on, but Mr. Dickie has not told of the conditions of slavery under which this has been granted. I will give two instances which are identical with many others of which I have personal knowledge. A farmer who purchased a farm of about 250 acres paid approximately £lO per acre off the purchase money paid for stock, implements, milking machines, etc., and in the good times spent over £lOOO in improvements. He received £3 15s ■ per week out of which he has to provide three employees in addition to himself to carry on the work of the farm and milk 120 cows. This' farmer-serf has to provide all the plant used in working the farm, and its upkeep, pay for horseshoeing, and deliver the milk to the factory. After deducting running costs the farmer and his three sons do not receive 10s per week each to five on and find themselves. In another case ttie farmer is under budgetary control and is tied down to the same conditions as the aforementioned farmer. He receives an allowance of 35s a week, and having no family to sacrifice as slaves to his mortgagee to work the farm and milk 40-odd cows he has out of his 35s a week to employ a man whom he boards and pays 20s per week, leaving 15s a week to pay running costs of the farm and upkeep of his home and food for the employee.' ■ '. Your readers will say it is irqpossible to' meet the liabilities- imposed by the mortgagee., In one .case the wjfe milks and sews at night till the brain is dizzy and the eyes grow dim, and the money earned is used for food, The other farmer, who suffers disability through fighting the battle for the capitalists; on the blood-red fields of France draws a war pension which his mortgagee has virtually confiscated. The mortgagee in one case has secured 120 cows, fam) plant etc.,-while the mortgagee in case number two has gained 40 cows, farm plant etc., plus a disabled soldier’s pension, nona of which the mortgagee has ever ■.paid a . cent for. ■Farmers should awake and arouse themselves to the peril of their country, especially those whose parents, like my own, sought out this country nearly one hundred years ago in their search for a new land where serfdom would be unknown. ‘ They went themselves or gave up their sons to suffer and shed their blood when they thought their freedom was - jeopardised by a foreign Power. Take this as a warning. There is as great a • danger to-day of their freedom being filched from them by a political party controlled by moneylenders and financiers as there was 20 years ago by a foreign Power. I do not urge resistance by shot and shell, but let the farmers show their resistance at the ballot box next November, cut out Party, and vote only for men who will place their country before pelf, and are not angling with the powers that be for Cabinet rank.—-I am, etc., H.. A. HUNT. Stratford, Feb. 22. QUOTAS ABANDONED. (To the Editor.) Sir,—lt is with a feeling of great relief that we hear that there will be no quotas on meat export to the Home market. Thus the ship of arguing that quotas are unavoidable unless we import duty free nothing but British manufactures, split against the rock of traditional British tolerance. The issue was not even raised. Great Britain proved to be far more candid, open-hearted and large than we were made to believe. The agitation, linking our exports with the volume of imports from Great Britain and assuring us that in this case chalk is certainly cheese, appeared to be a very intentional “quid pro quo,” and quite independent from the ’ question of compulsory reciprocity. . The campaign to fight quotas brought us, then, to (a) a free, unrestricted market at Home for our beef and (b) to a duty (or levy) of one half-penny per lb. on all our meat entering Great Britain. Both achievements can hardly be considered as measures directed to raise prices. On the contrary, for the dairy farmer they mean the end of . his cow and bobby calves trade. For others they indicate that only cheap Empire meat will be a feature of the future British, acceptances. because inter-Dominion competition will be very strong on a market Major Elliot has been calling “actually shrinking” as far as the consumption of beef goes. There is no doubt that our producers must be the first to sit up and take notice, thinking hard about new payable markets. These are the only solutions to the problem of how to prevent our export prices from collapsing even lower than below the cost of production.—l am, etc., 4 ALEX. S.-TETZNER. Putamahoe, Feb. 22.