The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1930. ATTACK ON WHEAT INDUSTRY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18622, 18 July 1930, Page 8

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1930. ATTACK ON WHEAT INDUSTRY.

No one with the least idea of the bewildering problems confronting producers, and the Govern ments as well, for that matter, in every wheat producing country, would advocate the throwing down of the tariff barriers protecting the New Zealand wheatgrower, unless they desired the complete destruction of the industry. In the House of Representatives on Wednesday, the Member for Temuka reminded both Parliament and people that there are (>703 wheat-growers in the country, and there are also people employed in subsidiary activities which play a part in production, distribution, and manufacture of the raw material through the various processes till it becomes bread on the table of the consumer. Mr Burnett pointed out that the volume of wheat transport on the railways was alone worth £60,000 per annum, and the wages paid totalled over £BOO,OOO. “I would ask the critics,’’ Mr Burnett proceeded, “if they would throw aside all these workers and their dependents.” Recent cable messages from the United States indicate that the American wheat grower is facing the gravest economic situation in the history of modern agriculture. Organised business has opened fire on the Federal Farm Board. And the Farm Board back blow for blow. Thus the breach has been widened between the nation’s business and agricultural interests. Mr Arthur M. Hyde who is Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, claims that he has in his keeping the ultimate welfare of 27,500,000 American citizens. Mr Alexander Legge, who is chairman of the Farm Board, has met the attack of commercial interests, with a fiery defence. But organised business —the Chamber of Commerce of the United States—disregards the defenders of the farmer, and crystallises its opposition in a resolution condemning the use of Government funds for the maintenance of farm co-operatives and demanding the repeal of the section of the Agricultural Marj keting Act authorising such use. The resolution may prove a boomerang, according to many observers, who believe that it will have the effect of solidifying the farmer sentiment for the Farm Board. The explosion was witnessed at the annual meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States at Washington in May. In speech after speech, members alleged that “unfair competition was being fostered through State backing being given the activities of the Farm Board,” and it was contended that “Government money enlisted in support of co-operatives is a menace.” In a hammer-and-tongs defence, as the Americans call it, Mr Legge pointed out that spokesmen for the Chamber had endorsed the Agricultural Act while it was being considered by a committee of the House of Representatives. ‘Certainly,” said Mr Legge, “none of you have seen any evidence of constructive action on the part of the Chamber of Commerce or the part of any of its affiliated organisations, with the doubtful exception of taking a referendum two years ago, looking to a remedy for and permanent improvement in the situation, which your own investigators had warned required substantial assistance, if not from you, then from the Government.” Pointing out that the Marketing Act committed the country to the principle of cooperative marketing, Mr Legge added that “there lias been considerable evidence in the past several months that entirely too many of your members were for the principle of co-operation so long as it did not work. I do not recall in years gone by,” added Mr Legge, “of hearing you men making any such complaint against Government aid that was extended to the manufacturing industry, to transportation and to finance. And these all played their part in adding to the disadvantages of the farmer, as did also the prefeerntial treatment to labour through immigration restriction and other measures.” As a matter of fact, the champions of the Federal Farm Board, which was constituted to afford urgently needed relief to American agriculture, regard the attack of business interests as “the best piece of luck.” Instead of a hard blow, it is really regarded as a big lift out of a very bad hole. The hostile resolutions will probably help to crystallise farmer sentiment in favour of the Agricultural Marketing Act, and the Farm Board’s plan to assist the wheat-grower. “As the battle lines are now drawn,” declares one journal representing a wheat-growing district, “farmers will do better to follow the Farm Board flag, rather than to sit on the fence or congregate in the camp of the enemy.” The well-organised attacks now being launched on the protection afforded the New Zealand wheat-grower may convince interested producers that the biggest menace to the future of the wheat-growing industry is the disunity and lack of co-opera-tive spirit that exists within the ranks of the producers.