MR CLAYTON IN REPLY.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 419, 19 May 1902, Page 3

MR CLAYTON IN REPLY.

(To the Editor of the Times)

Sir,—lt is not my purpose or desire to enter into a controversy on the merits or demerits of co-operative labour, or of socialism, as your correspondent “Co-op” practically invitesone to do in your issue of the 10th inst., for although I am tempted to do so it is obvious that it would serve no good purpose and would at present appear as if I was enunciating the policy of the Farmers’ Union.

I decline, however, to accept “Coop’s ” opinion that the resolution he refers to contains an “ uncalled for sneer at the competence of co-operative workmen.” It condemns the system not the men, and I venture to assert that if the matter of the co-operative system were put to a vote of the ratepayers in Poverty Bay 'it would be condemned as a failure. I have not yet come across a practical man—who has had an opportunity of judging—who speaks well of it; neither farmers, County Councillors, engineers, or co-operative workmen themselves, and I have heard it discussed by many of each class, and also had an opportunity of seeing its practical effects. Your correspondent admits that cooperative labour is “principally useful as an object lesson”. I entirely agree with him, but I fancy the public who pay will not care to have the lesson unduly protracted. He takes exception to the fact that two chairmen of County Councils were the mover and seconder of the resolution. I think that most unbiassed people would consider- that for that very reason it was most suitable that they should do so, as they are guardians of the ratepayers money, and should, from their experience in works of th'is kind be most competent to judge if the public’s money is being spent economically or not. But Co-op thinks that a most cogent reason against these gentlemen being competent to judge whether the public money is well expended in labor is the fact that they may be employers of labor. It may be said with equal justice that one who is not an employer is not competent to judge, likewise, as he has never experienced what labor can perform, and I think it safe to hazard the guess that your correspondent is neither an employer of manual labor nor a co-operative laborer. I have often remarked in my

limited experience with what facility one can criticise that which is outside one’s own business or interests, ally when covered by a nom-de-plume I pass over' the interesting insinuation of socialistic ideas into his letter, by your correspondent, as we have not yet reached the Utopian stage which ’ fancy he hopes for, and the subject has been so ably dealt with by Herbert Spencer and others (rather I fancy the disadvantage of socialism) that even if I were disposed, it would be superfluous »for me to .say anything ; but I feel constrained to differ from him when he asserts that the interests of employers and employees are not identical, and entirely agree with him when he states that their relations are

“ those of buyer and seller.” Precisely ! and should that make any difference to their relations with one another ? Does “ Co-op.” feel disposed to quarrel with his grocer when the price of currants goes up ? Neither will .the farmer quarrel with the laborer if the price of labor goes up, by reason of a legitimate demand, because? if there 15. that demand you may be assured that the farmer is more prosperous. When the farmer-’.S prospering then will the wages go up, as he will have more money to spend and be more inclined to effect improvements- In conclusion, may I be per-

mitted to thank “ Co-op.” for his

kindly advice to the Farmers’ Union, that it should use its “organisation in obtaining a fair and steady price ” for our commodities, and may I assure him that it pains me to rebuff ad vice so kindly given by stating that that has been a plank in the platform of the Union since its inception. His oracular' advice to tire Union not to stir up strife, l feel assured, will be followed, as we farmers are a slow, tmcolic class who love peace, and will have it, even if we have to fight for it, T must apologise for trespassing unor. | you, space to a iublcthat should need no explanation if it were not for the distorted and biassed views some' people (happily a nuno.llo