WELLINGTON NOTES.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 December 1923, Page 1

WELLINGTON NOTES.

THE WHEAT CHOP. PRICES AND SUBSIDIES. [Special To The Guardian.] WEDIXGTON. Dec. -t. Voicing wide-spread public opinion here the “Evening Post” tolls the wheat growers bluntly that their angling after further subsidies aiul fictitious prices is “neither business nor sportsman like.” “As is very well-known,” the “Post” says, “the wheat farmers of this country for some years past have been guaranteed a fixed price for their produce. If there was any loss by reason of the fall in prices, it was borne by the Government. or rather hy the people. As it matter of fact, those fixed prices have been above the value ot wheat for export. The arrangement made between the Government and the wheat farmers was one-sided in that while a price, and a good price as the world's quotations lor wheat went, was guaranteed them there was no obligation on the part of the farmers to grow wheat. If they could make more money by using their land for milk or meat- or other productions than wheat, they did so. The idea of the guaranteed prices, of course, was to ensure for the Dominion n sufficient supply ol wheat, or, put another way. to he self-reliant in the matter of our daily bread.” The position could not. be more fairly expressed than it is here. BIG PROFITS. The plain truth ol the matter is, that the wheat- producers, the millers and other people intitnnely associated with the industry made profits they never had dreamed of before. The arrangement, did not make for good husbandry nor fur the best business practice. The farmer- and the millers both were assured of high prices and ready stiles and they were left with no particular incentive to obtain these results by their own efforts. The payment bad attracted so much adverse

comment at the harvest ol last year, that, the Prime Minister made a virtue of necessity and announced that the butter subsidy and ;the wheat

r subsidy would constitute important - parts of the economies he bad undcrialien to effect. That seemed finally } the end of the arrangement. The o Minister of Agriculture stated in pro--1 eise terms that no further subsidies ! would he paid and presumably Mr Massey concurred with his statement. ) .lint now the South Island branches of the Farmers’ Union are discussing seriously the question of reviving subsidies and implying that the Government is favourable to this step. DO THEY PAY. The Wellington delegates, who attended the recent, conference of the n.s.-oeuired Chambers, reported to the members of their own Chamber yesterday. “From a commercial standpoint,’’ ihc> say, in one paragraph of their report. “wo must- ask ourselves, ‘Do the Government railways pay’ and in this ii wrapped up the question of the rates fixed as well as of nii.rcinuiierative lines. The latter arc more a matter I• 11- ihc managenii lit. of the railways itself, hut we. as members of the business community, are vitally interested in the rates as laid down in the tariff 1 1 mil the point of view w hether they ' give a. payable u-turn tor the large amount of capital that this country has invested in this public utility. The ai it ways at March 31, 1923 were operating 3028 miles of line, the capital cost ol which was £ 10-275.Ri1, and there were also line.- under construction which bad cost to that dale £b.575,9)0. making a total amount of C 1b.851,071 invested in our railways, an asset forming part of our national rleld which in oilier countries is usually represented by private capital.” The delegates have gathered important material for ealeuhiting the cost of the railways, tut they have inn yei provided the figures required for a comprehensive balance sheet. MR MASSEY. It may be permissuhle to quote withoat comment tic strictures of the “New Zealand Times” on Air Massey's participation in the Belfast demonstration. “Tin fact is astonishing, inasmuch as it i-‘ unprecedented and uncalled for. It i-, in tael, a breach ot the uiuviitten law that forbids outsiders from interfering in the domestic atiairs ol .Britain. By this action Air Massey lias laid himself open to criticism, which is likelv to be many-beaded and unsparing. We need not discuss this criticism, under its obvious headings of bad manners, unwarrantable interference; broach of hospitality and the rest. This because we do not think it a i all likely that- Air Afassey would deliberately commit a breach of manners or force himself into a contest- in which lie lias no place. He Ins always hitherto shown bis understanding of purpose of discussing matters of Imperial concern (it a Conference assembled for that purpose alone. Then, that purpose having been accomplished, by what reason can Air Massey justify his interference in the British general elections. All that is necessary to add is that there were only fragmentary extracts fiom the .Minister's speech and that the full facts may throw it different complexion on the'whole matter.