The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1911. FARMERS IN COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1189, 26 July 1911, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1911. FARMERS IN COUNCIL.

_ The vitality of the Farmers' Union is a striking illustration of the power of natural_ fact to overbear the falsehoods of interested prejudice. For j some years the Ministerial press has applied itself, with the utmost vigour towards discrediting the Union, merely because the Union stands foi , a certain economic doctrine that the party in power finds it convenient for the time being to oppose. Theirs is the activity of party prejudice. But, fortunately for this agricultural country, the Farmers' Union l'osts, when all is said and done, upon the hard fact that about ninetenths of our exports are the products of the soil At the opening of the annual conference of the .Union yesterday Me. J G. Wilson, the President, quoted a stimulating passage from an address by tho President of the American Farmers' Union, Mr. Chas. Barrett. One of the things Mr. Barrett said was that the American farmers know thai the principles of their Union "mean the salvation of the American farmer." In the case of New Zealand the principles of the Farmers' Union are in a great measure essential to It-he salvation of the country, ton. Wilson's address was no less interesting than his addresses to previous j Conferences. Of his useful analysis of the figures concerning land tax and inconio tax, we have space to say hore_ only that he has shown conclusively that the farmers are in this connection treated with just that want of consideration that might be expected of a Government only.too ready to join the Socialists in regarding.,as a parasite the man upon whom we all depend for our existence.

. We should like to think, but wo arc unable to feel, that there was no occasion for Mn. Wilson's warning of the disaster that would follow the submission of the farming industry to the Arbitration Act and the trade unions. Of course, as Mr. Wilson points out, the unionist assault upon the agriculturists would, if it suceoeclcd, lead to a disastrous state of affairs. The result would be the speedy repeal of the Act, but the damage done would by all opponents of the Act be considered too heavy a price to pay for repeal. The Union has already done a great service in sharpening the average far[iner'sj sense of his economic importance in the social scheme, but there is still a great deal that the Union can do on the purely agricultural side. It is depressing to learn that in a country accustomed to boast of its State Department of Agriculture there have been signs of a pretty widespread agricultural surrender to the pests that multiply against husbandry. • Latterly, Mb. Wilson said, some farmers had abandoned the fight against seasons, blight, and pests, and given up root crops. This strikes him as what he would probably call a combination of bad farming and bad morality, and he urges that farmers all over the country should co-operate in large combined experiments. He suggested, for example, the sowing of a few acres in every part of the country with every known kind of turnip under ordinary farming conditions. The Union has the means of doing an enormous service to farmers and to the nation in the expanded application of this

The most important business transacted b/ the Conference yesterday was, of course, its reaffirmation of its policy respecting land tenure. It is impossible to understand the resistance of the Government to the granting of the freehold to the holders of leases-in-perpctuity. Consider the hypothetical case of a holding of an original value of £100. For 999 years the State can never receive more than £4 a year from it (less, of course, rebates, reductions, and expenses of administration, which would probably bring the income down to £3 15s. at most). It cannot get more; and it cannot get hold of the land for 999 years. It is offered the chance of ending its bad bargain by giving the freehold and receiving £125 in cash, which it could invest at a far greate. , profit in many ways. Why is-this good offer rejected ? Because the land must be kept in the State's hands'! But where will any of us be, where will the world be, in 999 years'! No; the fact is that the resistance to the demand for the freehold in this case has its origin in the ultinmtc intention , uf the land nationalises to repudiate the original contract and expropriate the The Conference affirmed the principle of the freehold in respect of holders of renewable leases, and did so in a way that will commend the principle to all fair-minded people. These tenants, it is proposed, should be granted the freehold at a price to Iμ fixed by arbitration. That makes the issue one of pria-,

ciplc alone, and removes the question from the arena of disputes about the State robbing the lessee or the lessee robbing the State. We have in the past warned the Union, und we must warn if; again, that its greatest enemy is not the Government, or the land but the member of Parliament who, like Mr. Sjiith, of Rangitikci, votes against the freehold, which he professes to support, but which he is prepared to sacrifice as a blind follower of the Government.