The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1916. A THIRTY MILLION RECORD

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2833, 26 July 1916, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1916. A THIRTY MILLION RECORD

In his most interesting review of the past year's operations from the farmers' point of view, Sir James Wilson, president of the Farmers' Union, yesterday laid his finger unerringly on the most significant feature. Out of a total of exports for the year of £33,000,000, a record for the Dominion, no less than £30,000,000 was made up of produce from the land. As Sin James remarked, it is a truly stupendous amount for a million people to take from the land. But this record amount does not, of course, fully •represent what the land has'produced—it is tho oxcess which we have had ■ available for export abroad after meeting our own requirements in meat, butter, cheese, wool, and hemp. It is this enormous output by the men on the land that has brought us tho prosperity which we are enjoying in spile of tho war, and as president of tho Farmers' Union, Sir James. Wilson was not only justified, but was performing a _ useful service in onco more directing attention to tho fact, It was only to bo expected that the opportunity afforded by this annual gathering of representatives of the farming community would be seized to discuss recent legislation affecting farmers, and more especially tho heavy burdens of taxation imposed under stress of war necessity. It will be noted with a good deal of satisfaction that the president of the union is vory moderate in expressing his views regarding war taxation. Vory properly he directs attention to the heavy nature of the burdens that have been placed on the farming class, and he makes it quite clear that in his opinion the Government has gone over far, and has pressed unduly on the primary producers of the country. But, probably because ho realises the difficulties with which. Ministers are confronted, and, also, because above all things he is imbued with a high spirit of patriotism, Sin James makes only formal protest, and that in tho mildest possible manner. Tho money has to come from somewhere, and if the farming community as a wholo has been temporarily called on to provide more than its just share, then so much more is it to the credit of the farming community.

It is as well, however, that the country should realise how the burdon of the war is being met. There is a tendency in certain circles to constantly rail at the man on the land, often with little regard for truth, and less concern for the important part the farmer has played and is playing in the progress and development of the country, and the influence of his efforts on the prosperity of all classes. We need not dwell on the matter on the p resent occasion, but an interesting point raised by the president of the 'Farmers' Union in relation to th,o supposed enormous profits reaped by farmers as the result of the war is worth noting. No one, of course, disputes the fact that the advanco in prices for most of our primary products has added materially to tho receipts of a large portion.of the farming community, but in some quarters quite exaggerated

ideas are held on the subject. Tho point raised by Sir. Jaiies Wilson bears on this question. He directs attention to the fact that the figures denoting the value of our produce exports aro merely estimates, tho prices at which the produce is sold abroad not being ascertainable by those who compile- tho statistics. Thus'the enormous increase shown ii,i the estimated value of the exports for 1915-16 over those of 191415—nearly £6,000,000—is in his view erroneous, and very much exaggerated. He gives his reasons for this. view, tho chief being that tho prices actually realised for the 1914-15 exports were higher than those estimated, and in consequence tho margin of difference between the two years was much less than stated. _ His estimate is that the actual difference between the value of the exports for, tho two years is not moro than £3,000,000. The pointof interest in his argument is that if ho is correct the supposed "war profits" of tho primary producers' arc only about one-half of the amount estimated in the official statistics. The result docs not in any way affect the actual return to' the farmers or the prosperity of tho country, but merely goes to ishow that the farmors did better in 1914-15 than has been estimated, and that tho increaso in their profits due to the war is less tha'n has been commonly estimated,