CAN FARMING BE MADE TO PAY IN CANTERBURY?

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2026, 21 August 1880, Page 4

CAN FARMING BE MADE TO PAY IN CANTERBURY?

TO THE BDITOB OF THE FBBSS. Brs,—A letter appears in your issue of the sth instant, signed " Inquirer," in which I am asked by him to reply " to several matters which appear at first view to be questionable." I have much pleasure in complying with the request, as my only objeot in writing tho paper referred to was to draw attention to the real position of the farmer here, and to have the subject thoroughly discussed and considered by [those most interested, and I hope it may not be without some good result. It seemed to me that some words of encouragement wore sorely needed after a season of suoh low prices. "Inquirer's" fii-st objection is that "no inch block of land as Mr Grigg assumes to be available, namely, 200 acres of good agricultural land, &c, can be found, or at least if obtainable can be procured save at an exceptionably high price, tho interest on which would amount to a high figure." I have found that nearly all the objections to my paper have bean based on a misunderstanding of the first position taken by me, and " Inquirer "has, I submit, sir, made a similar mistake. My words were,|" such land as I now refer to should be worth from sixteen shillings to twenty-five shillings per acre par annum, according to the situation, if rented only without the tenant having a right of purchase, or any reversionary interest whatever. In case of a right of purchase being given, I would estimate the annual value to be greater by from four shillings to Biz shillings per acre per annum for a term of ten years. We may confidently expect that within that period land which is now saleable at £l2 to £ls per acre will be readily saleable at from £l6 to £22 per acre." " Inquirer " has quite ignored the above statement. My proposition was [simply what such land was worth to rent, and what could bo made from it over and above suoh rental—not what could be made out of a purchased farm at present prices. In that case I should have had to have charged the " six shillings per acre extra " as interest, or capitalised it, and estimated the probable value to sell at tho end of a given period. The very introduction of the word "probable " makes it a matter of speculation and not a matter of facts, as I submit I have dealt with only. I have had nothing to do with probabilities. I took|the actual realised prices obtained this year and the price at which (I submit) if such prices are to continue land must be obtainable at. I certainly claim to treat this as an ascertained fact and not as a question of probability. I do nob think any practical farmer, or any political economist, will dispute the conclusion but as being a consequent necessity. I suspect that " Inquirer " has confined his inquiries for a farm to suoh districts as Sjuthbndgo and Leeston, or other such like favoured localities, in which case suoh a farm aa I would select would be worth 25s per acre, plus six shillings per acre per annum (when purchased), equal to 31s per aero, that would make the purchasing value worth about £23 per aore. If such farms are obtainable at £23 per acre, I maintain that my position is further justified. " Inquirer " next takes exception to no allowance being made for cost of lease, repairs of buildings, and land tax. The coat of leaso is scarcely worth notice, not amounting to more than about 10s per annum on a lease of ten years. The land tax tho tenant is not liable to pay. Buildings are, under the law and usage of England, kept in repair by the landlord. " Inquirer " thinks I have made too low an estimate of cost of plant. As this is a matter of opinion, I would only ask him to attend any auction sale to convince him that " present prices " are much below my estimnte. " Inquirer " objeots to tho estimate of 5s per acre for use of reaper and binder, &c, and to the imprudence of depending on a borrowed reaper. I did not propose to depend on a borrowed reaper, as I stated at the mealing, but suggested that two or more neighbors should purchase one conjointly, and that it should be on certain fixed days during the season at the disposal of the several owners. " Inquirer " will excuse me for not replyit g to his exception taken as to the capability ok the two mon to do the work of the farm, further than to say that that is a matter on which an export only can decide. The only item worth naming which I can admit

that I may have under estimated in the annual expenditure is that (inasmuch as the crops are to be admittedly heavy) £lO more might have been allowed for the more expeditious harvesting of the crops. But I am confident that in the prices of produce I have made a lower estimate than may be fairly set down as the prices for this season. I haTe taken wheat at 3s per bushel. I sold my wheat at the nearest railway station at 3j 7£d per bushel. I took barley at 2s 6d per bushel, and I have sold all mine at 2i 9d and 3a 7£d per bushel. Cattle at my average for such stock would be £9 ; horsea at £25, my average has been £3O. The pea crop is taken at 25 bushels per acre. She crop from which I have now got my seed for next year averaged 48 bushels per acre. Barley I took at 40 bushels per acre, whereas all that I grew this year on land so managed as I have proposed (200 acres) averaged 60 bushels per acre. In fact, I did not wish to make out an extreme caße, but one that could be maintained against all oomers. The 50 sheepskins— I omitted to state the first 25 sheep when all killed are replaced with other 25, the sum spent in the first cost not being returned to capital account, but remaining as a subsidiary account. The last objection of "Inquiror" is that "Mr Grigg concludes that a farm will not pay until we have a thorough reformation of prices. This conclusion lam unable to reconcile with the oonfident statement at the commencement of his paper that farming can be made to pay." If I had used any such words as those contained in the foregoing paragraph I oertainly would have stated a manifest contradiction and absurdity. " Inquirer" has entirely misconstrued what I did say. My words were—" When are or can we hope to realise such results generally ?" " Not until there shall have been a thorough reformation of our forces (the word prises was a misprint)—a readjustment of the positions of the capitalist and the producer—that is, that the farmer must be a farmer such as I have described, not a land speculator, going out of his depth, and that the land owner must be a land holder, not a speculator either, but a man perfeotly content to receive the lowest rate of interest for the best possible security, as in all older countries." Yours, &0., Johh Gbigg. Longbeach, August 19 fcb, 1880.