MR CARROLL’S MEETING

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1481, 15 June 1905, Page 3

MR CARROLL’S MEETING

(To the Editor of the Times.)

Sir, —“ Elector’s ” letter in your contemporary savours very much of one who is trying to work up a little opposition against the Hon. James Carroll, bat the ruse is too thin. If he only could be induced to sign bis name one would see that ha was closely identified with the interests of an intending candidate, if not a prospective candidate himself. “ Elector ” asks, il What has the Government done for the farmers ? ” and in answer to this question I would refer him to your report of the Farmers’ Union meeting on Saturday last, as reported in your Monday’s_ issue. The moat representative meeting of farmers ever held in Poverty Bay asked for three things—first, that they should receive a further concession of £30,000 by way of subsidising shipping companies (they already receive £30.000 per annum) ; secondly, for tho establishment of an experimental farm in the Gisborne district; thirdly, for a bridge over tho Waipaoa river at Kanaekanae crossing, In replying to the requests of the Union, Mr Carroll pointed out that the farmers of New Zealand had received ten times more from the present Government than any previous administration, and went on to enumerate tho many departments that had been set up entirely in the intorest3 of the agriculturists. All industries in which they were engaged, he said, had been heavily subsidised, and every effort had been made by the Government to forward their interests. On the face of this it seems idle for “ Elector ” to ask what has the Government done for the farmer ? Let 11 Elector ” tell us if the Governufent has done as much as I have mentioned for those engaged in an other branch of industry—either the timber or gold industry—both of which contribute just as much to the general revenue as do the farming community. As the member for the district aptly remarked, “ We have done everything that it is possible for us to do for the farming community, but it seems part of their creed that they must be in opposition to us.” The concluding portion of “ Elector’s ” letter is too childish to call for an answer.—l am, etc., . ANOTHER ELECTOR.