THE Thames Star. SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 1924. COURTING THE WORKING FARMER.

Thames Star, Volume LVII, Issue 16072, 5 April 1924, Page 4

THE Thames Star.

SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 1924. COURTING THE WORKING FARMER.

"Wet) towards none; with charity for all: with °rmr.ess in th» right, as God fives us to «ee the right.”— Lincoln.

The Socialist Labour Party of New Zealand evidently takes the work in or farmer to be a country lass who -an be won with many soft word-- and most fulsome promises. Of course, if the promises are incapable of fulfilment, no action for breach of promise can lie against ‘his unscrupulous wooer as the party is responsible to none hut himself. The first promise made is that the

Socialist Party will supply a system of land tenure which will relieve the working farmer of all his trouble. Here it is from the party’s programme: “A land tenure based on occupancy and use, which shall secure to the working farmer the full fruits of his labour and exertions.” What the word “exertions” there means, no man knoweth. When asked if this tenure is a freehold or leasehold, Mr H. E. Holland, M.P., and his colleagues decline to say. “It is a tenure of occupancy and use” is all they will answer. Farmers know that both freeholders and leaseholders occupy and use —what, then, is this undefined tenure? It is promised to give the working farmer “the full fruits of his labour.” but how is he to know that it will do so unless it is explained what the tenure means? If the conditions of holding are those set out in other clauses of the programme the State to fix the price of all land, prohibit all private sale or transfer, and only allow surrender to the State at its own price—what sort of tenure is that? Xo attempt is even made to show how such holding will ensure to the win.king farmer the full fruits of his labour. In order that any one may get the full fruits of his labour from land he must do more than occupy and use the land. He must have working capital; he must have implements and machinery of production; use judgment in his purchasing, and in the application of his mental and physical powers and even then, the conditions of markets outside his control may deny him the full fruits of his labours. This fulsome promise of the Labour Party is seen, on examination, to be mere political cant and humbug. Another promise being made by Messrs. Holland, Parry and other Red speakers, is that if their party is only supported they will relieve the working farmers of their burden of mortgages. They ignore

the fact that the mortgagor has the benefit of the money which the mortgage represents, and could not otherwise have obtained it. This promise of general release from mortgages is wickedly cruel unless the party can show definitely how it is going to be done. There is absolutely nothing in the party’s platform which defines any plan for such release. The nearest approach to any tangible proposal is in these general terms: “The elimination of exploitation of the working farmer by the institution of a State Bank.” No bank, however, State or otherwise, will lend money on land or chattels without a mortgage. We observe

that the speakers for this party make a good deal of Australia having a State Bank, but they fail entirely to show that Australian farmers are any better off than those in New Zealand, nor do they suggest even that there are fewer farms mortgaged in Australia. Whilst we recognise that many farmers have heavy burdens to carry there is still a good deal of nonsense attached to the declamation of the Red speakers who recite the total number and value of mortgages in the Dominion with the suggestion that all such advances are a burden and a curse upon the working farmers. There are thousands of persons in town and country doing well to-day who got the money for their first start by way of a mortgage. The question of cheaper money and greater advances where needed, are practical issues to be handled on the basis of actual facts. What is most reprehensible in the Red Party's proclamations is the fact that there is nothing hut promises and class diatribes. Its programme consists simply of generalities, and its appeal is only the political claptrap of “trust ns and we will give you all you want.” The working farmer is talked to as if he were a country clod who knew nothing and particularly on the land question.