THE FARMERS' UNION.

Observer, Volume XXI, Issue 1177, 20 July 1901, Page 2

THE FARMERS' UNION.

Mr Seddon Does Not I/lke It. The formation of the Farmers' Union seems to have created a flatter of anxiety in the dominant political circle in Wei* lington. Organisers who presumably work for the public good and deßpise suoh a sordid consideration as pay, have been despatched into the country. Mr Seddon, laying aside the role of Trades Unionist leader, and posing for the nonoe as Farmer Hayseed, has /addressed the settlers in hiß own spoon-fed district of Pahiatua on the curse of Capital. And the result is the Producers' Union. Its mission i» to knock the Farmers' Union into the pro*

verbial cooked hat. Thus the political game between the • ins ' and the ' ootß ' goes on. Unless Mr Seddon mends his ways in the matter of extreme Labour legislation, however, it is not very clear how be is going to reconcile aggressive trades onion legislation in the towns with the advancement of the farmers' interests in the country. Hiß very latest fad, the Workers Compensation for Accidents Act, has placed a heavy burden on the settler* The farmer has suddenly become liable for any and every accident that may happen to his farm hands, whether due to the men'B own oarelessneEß or not. Neoesaarily, these farm labourers do not work under the settler's eye. Often they are left to their own devices for days together. And if a man chances, in bis cups, to fall over a heap of stones and break his leg, it is as easy to say the accident happened while felling a tree as not. Necessarily, therefore, the farmer aho must insure his hands at a heavy annual cost. How is he to be recouped for this outlay ? The Government cannot put up the price of bis produoe. He gets no benefit from the Protection which oostß him a third of his earnings, and which is designed simply to give employment and high wages to the trades unionist in the city. But, whether he can pay his rent or not, and whether or not his family have food to eat and clothes to wear, the annual tax for the insurance of his hands against accident must still be paid. The Act under wbioh employers were liable for injuries to their servants from faulty maohinery or insufficient precautions to secure Bafety was reasonable enough. But this new Aot, which saddleß the employer with the responsibility for the safety of men who may be criminally careless or wholly beyond his control, is oppressive and unfair. It is the duty of every thrifty workman, be he trades unionist or farm servant, to insure himself against accident. To him the payment of a single premium is a mere circumstance. But it is a crushing tax to the farmer who may employ six or eight hands, and whose annual earnings may not; be any more than those of one of his farm servants. Of course, these are matters of mere detail that Mr Seddon carefully avoided in his speech at Pahiatua under the auspices of the Producers' Union. And, as no interjections were allowed, he was not called upon to explain them. Hiß panacea for all the evils the farmers labour under was combination against Capital, in which be undertook to aseist them. , But is it not possible that we are oarrying this oruaade against Capital too far ? Mr Seddon, with all his talk against it, has not managed to carry on the business of the country without considerable borrowing, and in the face of our continual recourse to the London pawnbrokers the perpetual decrying of Capital is hypocrisy. Moreover, Capital is not doing any injury to the farming industry. To a large extent, the farmers are independent of it, selling their wool in the open markets, combining on the co-operative principle to run their cheese and butter factories, and driving their own sheep and cattle to the district saleyards when they are in want of a market. Oapital is no burden to them, so that it is useless to attempt to stir up class hatred in their minds, no matter how effective such denunciation of wealth may be with the trades unionist in the city. If Mr Seddon wishes to maintain the confidence of the country people his best method is to give some attention to their interests and moderate the aggressiveness of trades union legislation, whiob, at the present moment, ia alarming the whole oolony. This will do more good to his cause than the establishment of a dozen Produoerß* Unions.