CORRESPONDENCE.

Waipa Post, Volume VII, Issue 321, 9 June 1914, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

(Out correspondents' opinions are their uwn: the responsibility of editorial items makes sufficient ballast for the editor's shoulders. It is necessary that all letters for publication should bear the name of the writer—not necessarily for publication. butaser.idence of good faith.)

TO THE EDITOR. Slß,—This question was asked me the other day i.e.: Were the dairy farmers of Te Awamutu, in my opinion, getting all they could for their dairy products ? My answer was, No. One of your citizens asks me to write a few notes on why I think so, and what, in my opinion, could be done to increase the returns. First, I may statethatlhave been with the dairying industry for a number of years, and during the last five years I have devoted my whole time to cheese, and the last three years have successfully managed a small cheese factory,which incidentally has returned to its patrons from is o%dto is Id per lb butter-fat. Considering the results I have seen achieved by,small cheese factories I may be pardoned if in my following remarks I should show a leaning towards a cheese venture, and perhaps I may here state -that I am decidedlv in favour of such in places where a full milk supply can be obtained as against a small creamery. The creamery system is alright where it is conducted on a purely co-operative principle. But is it conducted on true co-operative principles in your district? I say No, for why? because your local creameries are run on a quantity bonus system, where the fortunate supplier who happens to be supplying a large creamery gets more for his butterfat than his less fortunate copartner, who supplies a small i creamery (sometimes to the extent of 2d per lb for his butterfat) although he has to work just as hard. Ask yourselves, is that I true co-operation ? Would the | patrons of the big creamery get; as much if the small creameries were not helping to supply the central butter factory ? I say again, No, and that it is the small creameries scattered all over the j district who are doing the largest towards a large turnover at the; central factory. Now let us see what could be done to increase the returns to the farmer at a I small creamery. Some are only | at the present time getting lo%d per lb for butter-fat and so on according to the size of its output to is for the season. This I must be taken only as an estim- i ate, and only alluding to your own j and adjacent districts, but I don't think it will be far out.' If the j smallest creamery was turned in-; to a cheese factory it would return from is to Is per lb butter-fat to its suppliers if \ run independently. The question i is asked, how do I know, and will it last ? The question has been discussed amongst you quite recently, but chiefly by butter men who were biassed in favour of butter and the creamery system. They, themselves, admit j that cheese has had the best of the deal forfive years, and that it is more than likely that it will still have the best of the deal for four years more, but they say I that butter will come back on top again then. Let us answer some j of their arguments against j cheese and touch on some of the j conditions of the trade of which they intentionally decline to make any mention or discuss. Firstly, ask yourself. Can any . man make a forecast of what is going to take place with regard to the market for four years ? I say, No. - In conversation with a produce meichant the other day, who has been connected with ever since there has been such a business, he said he would'nt care to go further than an export season, and then there was a possibility he might 'go wrong. Then ask why has cheese been the best proposition for the last five years, or why should'nt it continue to be so ? The opponents of the cheese factory say that is because Canada has decreased her export, and that as we have decreased ours we have made up that and the price will fall. Butthey don't tell you that in spite of the large increased output of New Zealand cheese that the imports in Great. Britain decreased from all sources with the exception of New Zealand during the last five years by ; more than our total output, and still Canada is sending less and less each year, and if we were to make and export three times as much as we are now making we v would still be unable to make up the deficiency in Great Britain.

Thev don't tell you that meat is /'rising in price every year, and that in its cheese is being consumed more and more each year by the masses. They say 200,000,000 people eat butter, and only 40,000,000 eat cheese, but they don't tell you that the consumers of cheese haye doubled in the last ten years and the consumers of butter have decreased and for why. Because on the one hand cheese is more and more becoming a substitute for

For meat, aad u;i the oth<jr hand nrirgarme is becoming more and more a.substitute for butter. To what conclusions will this naturally bring us ? That cheese must be more in demand and hold its price, and butter must be controlled by the influence of margarine on the trade. Now just let us consider one other aspect, which I think will have a large influence on the cheese market, and that is the early opening of the Panama Canal route to New York,which will mean the diverting of a very large portion of our meat export trade to New York, both from Australia and New Zealand, because the price of meat in New York is higher than in London. (In New York it is difficult to get a good joint of beef much under 2s per lb.) A prominent food expert in London said only the other day that before very long it would be that price in London. This then I hold is going to be the most important factor in keeping up the price of cheese, and I think we can confidently expect a rise in values rather than a decline. Then you say, won't butter rise too? No, because the same factor does not effect butter, and when you consider the large increase in the sales of margarine and what is produced annually, you must see that it is a great competitor on the world's markets for butter. Over 1500,000,000 lbs of margarine were produced last year, of which the great butter country of Denmark produced 100,000,000 lbs. Much more could be said, but I will not trespass further on the editor's | space, further than to say that in j mv opinion a cheese factory run | on independant lines in Te Awamutu would be the btst paying proposition for the dairy farmer, and would bring him in increased profits, and it is a proposal well worthy of discussion by your Chamber of Commerce and citi- j zens. Trusting these few notes I will be of help.—l am, etc.,

CHEESEMAKER. [ln forwarding this letter to us for publication, a respected resident-of this district, who is not directly interested in dairying matters, writes :—" [ enclose herewith a letter which has been sent to me following a discussion I had with an expert cheesemaker at the Winter Show on Thursday.. I have known him for many years. He was a butter-maker for five or six years, and then turned to making cheese, so he ought ' to speak from experience."— Ed.W.P.]

TO THE EDITOR SIR,—In your issue of the 26th May appears a resume of an address by the Rev. I Jolly, in advocacy of the Bible in State Schools, which admits of decided controversy. From the statement made by the lecturer as to "75 per cent of the people of New Zealand being agreed that something should be done," one is almost forced to the opinion that the rev. gentleman has already had a referendum on the question, otherwise whence his information ? The present secular system appears to harmonise with the opinions of those not bound by creed or sect, and furthermore, has its advocates within tho church. The reintroduction of the Bible in Schools is a christian church movement, aiming at the preservation of the prestige of the church, whose decadence is now almost generally an acknowledged fact. The most familiar cry of the clergy of New Zealand to-day is diminution in attendance 2nd failing enthusiasm on the part of the congregation ; hence the advocacy of biblical instruction. It is well for Mr Jolly to remember that the formerly accepted truths of the bible are to-day subjected to keen scientific criticism. Bat a few weeks ago (I refer to a recent cablegram) the Rev. Dr Aked, an international figure in the clerical world, gave it as his opinion in words to this effect, That no sane man of to-day would think of accepting as authentic the story of Immaculate Conception. Again, there are not wanting among the most advanced scientific men of the age, many who will not accept as authentic or inspired the biblical version ; of humanity's history. Some | describe the story of creation, as ! does Sir Oliver Lodge, to be "ex- ; tremely absurd "; others refer to | the first chapter of Genesis as a j "totally wrong version of the 1 earth's development," and " the/ notion of a primitive golden age \ and a fall is now in I view of our undisputed know- ! ledge of prehistoric nyrff, to be | utterly untrue— of ; truth." Small wonder indeed, if J the movement for a reintroduction

of the Bible in Schools did not have its opponents. The bible was once regarded as above criticism ; that clay has gone by. Mr Jolly is evidently somewhat

surprised that boys convicted of offences had received no religious instruction. Would he be bold enough to assert, or does he infer,

that religious instruction would prevent crime? The prevention of crime lies not in religious instruction, but it is, as is religion itself, the child of material conditions. Mr Jolly referred his j audience to a study of the | methods of the nations which lead the world. Presumably included in these is Britain with her bible in schools system. Surely Britain's greatness does not lie in the fact that, of her 40 millions of population, " 12 millions," to quote the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (ex-Prime Minister), "are living on the brink of starvation." This wasn't quite Ruskin's idea of greatness. The statement of Mr Jolly's that "Morals were based upon the word of God" is but a mere I postulation, and in this utterance j he is guilty of the charge he j attributes to others. Sociolo- j gists aver that races who have never known of the bible have pronounced moral codes. A "converted" Eskimo writing to Paul Egede, an eighteenth century Greenland ' missionary, said, "My countrymen know j nothing either of God or devil 1 and yet they behave respectively, deal kindly and as friends with each other, tell each other everything, and create their means of j subsistence n common." Missionary Dr Munzinger, in reference to Japan says : "In Japan morality is a thing apart, quite dissociated from religion." At one period of the United States history chattel slavery was defended in the churches as being morally right. No, Mr Jolly, morals neither fall from Heaven, nor are they " based upon the Word of God," nor are they prescribed by some eternal code of laws, but they are a social, palpable need, conforming with the times ! I cannot speak authoritatively in reference to recent yegrs of the criminal statistics ot Victoria, with its secular, and New South Wales, with its non-secular educational j system, but from 1890 to 1905 Victoria secular education was j abundantly vindicated in' having the best record comparatively of j any of the other Australian States. The reference made to the number of divorce cases in j Auckland and New South Wales ; proves nothing. Divorce cases ! have other causes than immoral- j ity, being oftimes due to in- j compatibility of temperament and other social causes. Though an opponentof the reintroduction 1 of the Bible in schools I do not fear a referendum, which the j people are quite entitled to should j t'-iey desire it, as they are on j more important questions. I repeat, however, that the Bible's fundamental truths are widely j challenged to-day, and 1 hope if a referendum is decided on a j majority of the people will decide i for a continuance of the present system, and confine the church, j in remembrance of her bitter j persecutions in the name of truth 1 and right to her "spiritual"! sphere. —I am, etc., J. E. Duncan.

TO THE EDITOR

Slß,—What's in a name ? Te Awamutu, Awamutu, or Te Amuta—and we would still have the i same old historic town. Your correspondents so far have all favoured the suggested deletion of the annoying "Te," and I am ~ not surprised at this, for Ido not , think anyone can dispute the fact that common usage has given to our town a most ugly-sounding name. With your correspondents I certainly agree that the constitution of a borough provides a most suitable opportunity to bring about the desired change, and I hope that the powers that be will take the necessary action. Since your correspondent " Progress" has given instances of the mutilation of our town's name I may be pardoned if I follow suit. A.s one who visited Taumarunui the other day with the hockey players I was disgusted to hear our ban-ackers persistently yell- j ing, " Temoot! Temoot!" Surely j anything is better than that, and I "Awamutu" for preference.— -Jjn am, etc., /