LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1258, 13 October 1911, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

PENALISING THE FARMER. , Sir,—l notice in your agricultural column that tho Minister for Railways (tho Hon. .1. A. Millar), in answer to i some resolutions forwarded by tho Farmers' Union Conference, has refused to accede to that relating to the higher rates charged by the railways for carriage of imported timber and other goods over those charged on goods produced in New Zealand. The reasons given for not acceding to it, namely, "that tho policy of charging imported goods at higher rates than for those goods produced in New Zealand has been in operation for many years," is surely a weak one. Such a reason could bo used in support of any custom, however evil, and against any reform. The request of tho Farmers' Union is certainly as reasonable, because tho effect of such extra rate docs not fall evenly on the consumer, as a duty docs. It practically taxes tho up-country farmer, but not tho dweller at or near a port. If it is desired by the people of this country to levy a duty or keep out the imported article, it is the business of Parliament to place such duties on them as they think fit—that will act on all consumers with equality. But here the Minister for Railways or tho Ministry lake it upon themselves to put on an extra rate on what is really an extra tax upon all thoso who unfortunately live away from a port; the further away the moro you are taxed by the extra rate. Tlio hard woods of Australia are much used by farmers, particularly in Canterbury, for light fencing gates, etc.. No New Zealand wood is equal to it. It is a hardship, and against tho duo development of the country that these farmers should have to pay this extra tax. Wo talk of encouraging tho back-block settler, but now the further he is back the more wo tax him.—l am, etc., W. J. BIRCH. October 3, 1911.