Flax Royalties.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 20 August 1910, Page 4

Flax Royalties.

MR STANSELL'S ADDRESS CRITICISED. In its issue of Thursday last, the Foxton Herald had the following editorial comments on the address made by Mr J. R. Stansell, senior, of Shannon, on the matter of flax royalties:— Mα; J. R. Stansejll addressed a meeting of settlers and townspeople at Shannon last Saturday night. Mr Stansell has, by the way, been a settler in the district for many years and is aliout to transfer his place of abode to Karori. We are informed that Mr Stansell is likely t) be a Labour candidate for the Otafei seat at the next election. Perhaps this accounted for his korero on Saturday. What concerns us however, is Mr Stansell , s remarks in reference to the flaxmilling in dustry, and by reason of the fact that he is an ex-miller they should be worthy of consideration. It is reported that "Mr Stansell spo,ke at some length on the hemp industry, saying that it was generally stated that the cost of labour was billing the industry. He had milled flax himself at til 'per ton, and the cry of the flaxmiller was .vrong. The trouble was tho immense royalties ('barged by flax land owners. The speaker said- that he knew three men flaxmillers, who had been ruined by paying big royalties. Mr Stansell said that a well known flaxowner had told a flaxmiller that he (the flaxowner) was going to have 12s out of the 10s per ton saved by labour-saving machinery. He then moved that the Government be re spectfully requested to hold over the granting of a bonus for improved machinery which had the effect of doing away with labour and thus putting money into the pockets of a few wealthy flaxowiiers." Mr Stansell , s motion was not carried. Perhaps Mr Stansell turned out hemp at £11 per ton before the .advent cf the Arbitration Court and at a time when flax was treated as a noxious'weed. His figures do not apply to flaxmilling at present. To-day the flaxmiller .is sandwiched between the royalty man and tht> Arbitration Court. The Govern ment protects the worker against unfair treatment on the part of the miller despite the rise and fall of the market, but it allows the growei of the raw material a free hand to play ducks and drakes with the industry at his own sweet will. Surely the miller has a right to claim the .same protection from the Government against the squeeing methods of the owner of the green blade as the worker has against the manufacturer. The miller can discuss industrial matters with the workers and we are pleased to know that there is now a better feeling existing between employer and employee --but the miller has to take off nis hat to the royalty man. The millei can think what he likes about the royalty question so long as lie doesn't do his thinking aloud l . The royalty iimn ran demand what lie likes for the raw material and the n I'M lor must submit km , seek some other avenue for bis capital. The owner of flax land is justified in getting a return at least emial to wliat his patch of earth would produce* oither for agricultural or pastoral purposes but when, as Mr Stanseli alleges, the royalties become so abnormal as to threaten tho existence of an 'important national industry which gives employment to hundred's nf persons, then ft is time for the State to take a hand either by aequiring the flax areas or legislating to fix the royalties on an equitable basis in order that the industry will bo protected and that justice be done to all concerned.