PUBLIC OPINION.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 September 1935, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION.

VIEWS ON CURRENT TOPICS DAIRY QUOTAS AND PRICES. MR. COATES’ VIEW DEFENDED. (To the Editor.), Sir,—Mr. Coates has definitely informed us that regulating supplies is necessary to Denmark, Australia and New Zealand. A section of farmers—the ones who like to work hard and earn little—will disagree with Mr. Coates. Yop, Mr. Editor, also disagree—vide your sub-editorial in to-day’s issue of the Daily News. Farmers are rejoicing to-day because butter is quoted at 100 s. We have little to sell just now, but we are buoying ourselves up with the hope that this price will continue. Why has butter reached 100 s? The answer is because there is a small shortage. Presently, if the season is good,’ there will be no shortage, and down goes butter to 70s or less. If a slight shortage can lift the price 30s, then is it not perfectly reasonable to conclude that a moderate restriction by means of the quota would certainly assure the farmer of not less than 100 s per cwt? Now let us consider that tiresome platitude that the trouble is not “overproduction but under-consumption.” This phrase sounds grand—something like that blessed word Mesopotamia. But it cannot put a penny in the suffering farmer’s pocket. The farmer' does not wish to restrict production, and so far he has not restricted it, but in a few years increased the total exports from 80,000 tons to 120,000 tons. Do you not think, Mr. Editor, that seeing butter is such a good food that the farmer should be paid for that extra 40,000 tons? But no, he has got little more for 120,000 tons than for 80,000 tons. No wonder Mr. Coates, who knows better than the •farmer himself what is best, is in favour, of restriction. Yes,, sir, and even the churches are now looking upon restriction with horror and calling it a crime against God and Man. But is it not such a crime to compel farmers, their wives and children and employees to slave for the pittance of the last four years? Every person in the towns that eats our butter and pays less than Is 6d per lb is living to quite an extent unfairly on the farmer. Why were there no unemployed in New Zealand prior to the year ending 1929? Perhaps you cannot explain why, so I will tell you. There were then no unemployed because the farmer was getting a decent price for his butter, meat and wool. Why are there 60,000 unemployed now? Because the farmer is getting only 8d plus exchange for butter, and low prices for wool and beef. By all means let us go ahead and try and increase consumption, but who will tackle the job I do not know. Oh, yes! It ..is all so beautifully altruistic, but while the job is getting done what is the farmer going to do? The fact that when America ploughed in cotton, Brazil grew more is not an analagous case with butter. Denmark, Australia and New Zealand supply more than two-thirds of all butter consumed in England. They now are realising that by co-operation they can get a fair price for their butter. And why should they not? If I buy a motor-car, a farm implement or an electric motor from England I have to pay a good price for it, and quite right too, for I have no. right to expect these things at a price ruinous to the makers. Then why' should not England pay me a good price for my butter? Anyhbw England does not want to be inundated with butter or any farm produce. It embarrasses her and ruins her own farmers. Give up restriction and increase production when you have other markets. Till then it is sheer madness to pour butter into England. Farmers support Mr. Coates in his wisdom of regulating supplies. He knows better than we do that restriction is the only method that can ?.vert disaster. The Ottawa agree- . rents will soon expire, and upon the new agreement depends not only the farmers’ prosperity, but the prosperity of the whole of New Zealand.—l am, etc., ' • • W. P. KEN AH. Urenui, Sept. 4. * [Reference to.the-above letter will.be found in the editorial' columns—Editor.]

PRAYERS FOR PEACE. (To the Editor.) Sir,—That the present disturbed state of international relations is causing world-wide concern is evidenced by the recent gesture made by church leaders in observing a special day of prayer for peace. Truly the clouds looming over the horizon of the world’s international politics are sufficiently ominous to warrant such intercession. It seemed to be generally agreed among the speakers at these services that the responsibility for war .rested with the individual. It was, therefore, at its foundation, a moral and spiritual question. That being the case, it should rest with enlightened spiritual leaders to indicate the solution to the present state of distress and perplexity. There appears, however, a lack of definiteness and clarity in conveying to the public mind the Divine viewpoint, and the Divinely declared solution for tlie world’s woes as revealed, in that Book of instruction of which these gentlemen claim the custody. Not very long ago a prominent New Zealand clergyman admitted that the. church dwelt in “a nebulous realm of abstract ethics,” from which it would be necessary to climb down if they wished to make spiritual progress among the people. It must be admitted that the Holy Scriptures contain, among their, varied treasures, definite and tangible political prophecies concerning present and future international movements, as well as historic records, which should serve as ‘a beacon light to those who are watching for a promised glorious day of peace on earth. In this connection one question may be respectfully asked: Is there any warrant, on Scriptural grounds, for belief in the permanency of the League of Nations as at present constituted, or should we not rather look for the imminent formation of a most formidable confederacy of European nations, which will operate chiefly in the Near East, and from which Great Britain will be definitely isolated?—l am, etc., P. ANDERSON. Stratford, Sept. 5.