The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1930. CLAIMS OF AGRICULTURE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18629, 26 July 1930, Page 8

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1930. CLAIMS OF AGRICULTURE.

Although there may be something to be said for the Ministerial support of the agitation in favour of an agricultural bias in education, substantial proof of the gross ignorance of some Members of Parliament of the vital importance of the wheat-growing industry, is self-evident and seems to suggest that there are among our public men, not a few whose education along practical lines has been sadly neglected. The almost ruthless agitation against a small measure of protection being afforded the wheatgrowing industry reveals a startling lack of appreciation of the importance of agriculture in the scheme of national affairs. Quite recently, Mr Baldwin made a declaration of his party’s agricultural policy, which following expected lines was based on a frank recogntiion of the desperate plight of the farming industry in Britain—not in all, but certainly iu most of the branches—a policy that is boldly conceived within the limits of what is politically possible in the Homeland. In the course of an interesting address, Mr Baldwin revealed himself as a champion of the claim of agriculture for a fairer deal. “It always seems to me,” said Mr Baldwin, “that the key of the situation in agriculture lies in wheat.” Mr Baldwin went on to say that he was convinced that unless wheat survived, agriculture cannot survive. “If we can recover even a portion of our old wheat acreage,” Mr Baldwin asserted, “we can get the whole farming system of Britain on to a sounder basis, and indirectly help the dairy farmer, the sheep farmer, and the grower of oats, and the grower of potatoes. Basing his considered judgment on years of war experiences, Mr Baldwin declared that the country had had enough of food control in the war, but he was prepared to give the undertaking, that if he were returned to office, he would fix a guaranteed price for wheat of milling quality at a price sufficient to enable wheat to be remuneratively grown on ordinary wheat land. The urgency of some assistance being given agriculture in general and wheat growing in particular, is recognised by all interested in the man on the land. The whole question of safeguarding British industries is involved in Mr Baldwin’s policy. Lord Beaverbrook, who leads the new crusaders, in his recent campaigning made this arresting statement;

.... there is a market in Britain for Empire foodstuffs or there is a market for foreign foodstuffs, but there is not a market for both. It must be one or the other. It cannot be both.

We want taxation of foreign foodstuffs because we object to the subsidised East Prussian wheat; because we will exclude by means of tariff the suffsidised French wheat, subsidised to the extent of twenty shillings in the quarter—4oo,ooo tons, not quarters, of French subsidised wheat can be purchased at this moment; because we want to exclude French subsidised flour which is arriving in the British market in increasing quantities; because we want a tariff on Argentine wheat produced at a cos* of perhaps twenty shillings a quarter by labour that can only be described as gipsy labour under conditions that England could not possibly tolerate, and which no farmer would permit in this fair land.

Statesmanlike recognition of the national importance of the wheat growing industry has convinced many leading public men in the Homeland that the nation must do its duty and rescue agriculture from its present plight. “The whole object and aim of any Government, which follows the present one,” declared Mr Baldwin, in an address before ten thousand rural inhabitants, “must be to try to restore prosperity to productive industry, and by productive industry I mean the industry of town and country alike.” Mr Baldwin remarked with telling emphasis that “there is greater need to-day than there ever was for town and' country alike to understand and sympathise with each other’s problems. The ignorance in the towns of your problem,” declared Mr Baldwin, addressing the agriculturists, “is colossal.” And this ignorance, it is worthy of note, is not confined to Britain. It has been pointed out, however, that as. the result of blind prejudice Britain imports every year £50,000,000 worth of pig products, £21,000,000 worth of eggs and poultry, and £67,000,000 worth of butter and cheese. It. is obvious that trade reciprocity will revitalise the agricultural industry in all parts of the Empire., No efforts are being made in England to-day to stop the importation of bounty-fed and dumped foreign agricultural products.. Such a course is impossible with a Government which clings so feverishly to obsolete dogmas, but the whole country is awakening to tile fact that the spirit of cooperation ’ between the farmers themselves would be the best contribution to the revival of a prosj>erous British agriculture, aided by any measure of State help that encourage the man on the laud to help himself by the thorough reorganisation of all branches of the agricultural industry.

CONTROL OF EDUCATION. It, has remained for a committee wholly composed of laymen to strike the deadliest blow that has been administered to local control of education since the national system was introduced. This view has been expressed by public spirited citizens who have served long and faithfully in the administration of education. The ironic aspect of the report of the Recess Education Committee is that ten laymen whose collective experience in the local administration of education is almost negligible, have considered themselves qualified to evolve a new education policy, which in effect declares that all lay educationists from end to end of New Zealand, thousands of whom have devoted a lifetime of public service in the administration of education, are unfitted to be entrusted with the least measure of local control. The report itself literally bubbles over with the views of professional educationists, hut the considered views of experienced education authorities are wholly ignored. Although extensive extracts of evidence are quoted in which the Director of Education is well featured, the only persons outside the charmed circle of the teaching profession whose views are considered of sufficient value to have their evidence quoted in the report are Mr Atmore who “brought out. clearly” several important points and an exschool teacher who is now a farmer. The explanation, of course is obvious. The report may be the voice of the committee, but the hand is all too clearly the hand of the Department. One significant omission has been noted. There is no report from the Director of Education on the estimated cost of the junior high school scheme recommended by the Committee. It is known that Mr Strong has already made this investigation. Why then deny a group of laymen the guidance of information already in the possession of the Department, and permit them to make the foolish blunder of reporting that the initiation of the new scheme need not be delayed on the ground of additional expense, when the Director of Education holds other views. It is true that the report sugars the bitter pill by saying that high school boards of governors “will find in the important sphere already entrusted them every opportunity of maintaining the characteristic individuality and the best traditions of their schools,” that education boards would occupy “a dignified and important place in the new system.” Moreover, it is safe to say that sixteen thousand school committeemen throughout New Zealand will no doubt be thrilled to learn that they will “gain rather than lose by being relieved of useless and unreal powers,” but every one who takes the trouble to read the report of the Recess Education Committee, and read it carefully, will be forced to the one conclusion that the recommendations do not aim at the unification of local control, but favour the crucifixion of local control of education and the glorification of bureaucracy centralised in the Department of Education in Wellington.