WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 11 April 1927, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

A QUESTION OF FARMING. NORTH AND SOUTH. Special to " Guardian.”) WELLINGTON, .March 8. The Government Statistician, one of the most capable and independent departmental heads to he found in the Dominion, has been stopping on the sensitive corns of the North Island farmers. In his recent report upon •' Rural Holdings,” people who have taken the trouble to read this very interesting document have come across a paragraph which suggests tin odious, comparison letweeu North Island and South Maud husbandry. "The average farm is considerably smaller in

the North Island than in the South Island,” this paragraph run-. "The area ol high eoiintry in the South makes this inevitable, though a roll ti n it;) lire ol good larmiug 111 the -.outli and had farming < impovel ishment of pastures) in the north might do something to redress the balance, particularly, it in the markets ol the world sheep products were to appreciate relatively to cow products.” Mr Fraser is not careless ol the feelings ol the North Island farmers ; he wraps up bis meaning in delicate pliraseologv: but Ids obvious criticism is that the farmers in the North, usually , more lavoured by Nature, are not farming so well as those in the South, j The fact is plain enough for anyone who lias travelled through the _t\r. ' l-.nds to see and it carries its own signifieaiKO. The habit of l ard work is more general in the South than it is in the North. FARMERS’ UNION C RUSADE. Mr W. J. Poison, the Dominion President of the New Zealand fanners Union, is carrying his evangel o! drastic public retrenchment, tarilf tv‘’orin. land settlement, labour sanity and rural credits through flic length and breadth of .the country districts oreparatory. iL is assumed, to a lesceub on the cities. Everywhere lie ks finding attentive and appreciative audiences and is doing much to awaken an apathetic public to its vital interests. "There must be drastic economy in public expondituring.” a summary of one of bis passages runs in a orovineial paper. ”We paid (.'1,911.00(1 in salaries in 191 1. We paid (J-I.Jj‘2,-!0:i in 1920. We have increased our railway expenditure from C,1,001,180 in 1911 to £.1.9.80,798 in 1920; education from Cl.-120.0 II to C 0.509. tnii in the same period : and Post and Telegraph from Cl. 170.882 to £2.100.791. What justtication i- there, for example, for an increase in Post and 'lelegraph salaries from Cbb9,2!o in 1911 to C1.R20.853 to-day ? We are ret tninly not getting three times as good a servile.” Neither Ministers nor partisans are challenging Mr Poison’s assertions

a,ml even the secretary of i lie Reform League, the custodian of the reputalion of tl;e Government, remains silent.The president of the Farmers’ Union indeed appears to have the platform all to himself, and he certainly is making good u.-e of his opportunity. FUTURE OF DAIRY CONTROL. j Under this heading, the " Evening Post.” which, as acknowledged in these columns before, has done its best, to maintain a judicial attitude throughout the “ absolute control " and ‘'price axing ” controversies, bints at the problems now i onl routing ill" dairy; industry. “Mr Stronaeli P iers n, the Government’s representative on the | Dairv Hoard, lias resigned." it says., The fart may lie regarded a- a victory ; by that section of the Hoard and the producers which still adheres to what j has proved to he the disastrous policy j of price-fixing. Mr Paterson no ilouot | was a thorn in the He.-h of certain j member- of the Hoard of whose business tactics and strategy be disap-• proved, believing them . > lie unwise j anti dangerous. Hut so they proved, and so the Hoard, by six to three, admitted when it abandoned them. . - 1 Hut is the resignation of Mr Paterson to l,e followed by harmony on the board, increased returns to producers and restoration of friendliness of the Hritish provision merchants and re-, tailors? We venture to believe that no one would he more pleased than Mr Paterson if these were the results of Ids action. What will he difficult for the Government is to (ill his pince, for if any hut a nevler-tly plastic successor is appointed it is difficult, after Mr Paterson’s experience, to see howl Kinootn working of control of New Zealand dairy produce is to be secured roI the mutual advantage of producer, dis- 1 tributor, and consumer.” The " Dominion,” apparently having backed tinwrong horse, is not discussing the matter. ' EVIDENCE.” One of the unworthy features of the j , controversy going on In connection , with the butter industry just now Is . the acceptance by many interested | people of bald statements made by Mr j William Grounds as “evidence”. At i

the last meeting of the Dairy Hoard, from which, of course, the representatives of the recognised Press were oxeluded. Mr Grounds made several statements reflecting upon Air fstronach Paterson’s loyalty to bis colleagues oil the board's London Agency. They were simply statements, unsupported by -any other evidence, and yet they were broadcasted in the board’s official publication and accepted in some quarters as proof of the chairman's charges. As a matter of fact they were the merest assertions, which no legal tribunal would have taken into account under any circumstances, and yet quite a number of bodies associated in one way or another with the dairy industry have demanded Air Paterson’s resignation from the London Agency on the strength of the " evidence produced b.v Air Grounds.” Air Grounds produced no evidence, but in the absence of bis opponent reflected upon the candour and good-faith of that gentleman in a way that coni I not be too frankly reprobated. *