The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1920. TIME FOR A CHANGE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10609, 7 June 1920, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1920. TIME FOR A CHANGE

No lair-minded person, we are convinced, . can possibly study the prevailing schedule of railway freights on primary produce—practically, except for very slight war increases, the same as that adopted a quarter of a century ago—and compare that schedule with the very great increases which have taken, place in the prices of such produce, without admitting that the time for’ a change has undoubtedly come. Tho time for a change, tho time for an increase in freights fairly proportionate to tho phenomenal rise in the prices of primary products, is, indeed, wo contend, long overdue. That increase should, in all fairness, have been made when the phenomenal rise first became manifest. The primary producers would thus have been compelled to make, out of their warincreased prices, something more like their fair .contribution towards tho Cfst of the war. But, of course, with “tho farmers’ Premier” as head, of the National Government, and with so strong a “Reformer” as , Mr W. H. Hornes (now Sir William Herries) as Minister for Railways, such ain increase of freights was hardly to,ho expected; while, had any of the Libera] members of the National Cabinet, or any Liberal members of Parliament pressed tbo point, it would, very naturally, have been regarded by the “Reform” clement as a highly controversial or contentious matter, and, therefore, ruled out of order in time 'of war. Now that the war is over, however, and How that tho National Government is no more, the hands of Liberal members of Parliament arc no longer tied in that way; and wo trust that in, the forthcoming session they will demand, with no uncertain sound, an immediate and substantial increase in the railway freights* on primary produce. When the schedule of railway freights was consolidated in 1896, crossbred wool, as is pointed out in tho current issue of tho “New Zealand Railway Review,” sold at.7jd.to 8d a pound, and halfbred at 7d to 7Jd; the farmer usually got 5d a pound at most for his butter, though for the best butter tho price might rise as high as lOd per pound; cheese stood at 3jd to 4d a pound; and sheep wero chiefly valuable for their skins, which, if full-woollod, might fetch 4s Cd to 5s 6d; while hemp was sold at £9 to £9 KXs per ton of “good fair” quality. Contrast these old “nightmare” prices obtained’, by the struggling farmers of 1896 with the values, princely by comparison, pocketed by the motor-car-speeding farmer of 1920. Butter, then' valued at 5d to lOd, is not mow sold below la 6d, tho fixed maximum retail price —rwhich, by the bye, is far from satisfying tho fanner—being Is 8d a pound. Crossbred wool, instead of bringing in 8d a pound, is now requisitioned by tbo British Government at 17d; while halfbred has risen to 15d or 18d; and cheese, onco at 3d a pound, now averages Hid. Substantially, however, the railway freights on these primary products, except for the slight war-increases referred to above, remain the same as in 1896. On hemp, cheese, butter, and wool, they are, in fact, somewhat lower than they were quarter of a century ago. Quoted for a hundred miles in each case, the railway freight on meat, £1 6s 6d per ton in 1896, still remained at that figure in 1914; and, with the war-increasc added, is now £1 12s Id. On a ton of hemp, the 1896 freight, £1 6« 6d, was reduced in 1914 to 14s 6d, and is now 17s 6d, or LVi less than that of twenty-five years ago. Sheep wore charged £2 10s iu 1896; - the freight remained the same in 1914, and is now £3 Os 6d. Cheese, which paid a freight of £1 17s 7d a ton in 1896, paid only 14s 6d in 1914, and to-day pays 17s 6d only, or AT Os Id less than twenty-five years ago. In butter there has been a very similar decrease—the freight on this commodity, which has increased so enormously in value in tho interval, being £1 13s 7d in 1896, 14s 6d hi 1914, and to-day 17s Cd per ton! On a bale of wool, again, the freight was 7s 5d in 1896, Gs 7d in 1914, and today it is only 6s 9d. Well may the editor of tho “Railway Review” declare that the comparison of schedule rates with values “shows plainly that tho railways have been paying their way at the expense of other lines of merchandise than the Dominion’s primary products, and that those freights bear absolutely no

relation to values, ’’ and that, as a matter of'fact, “our benevolent railways will carry for Is od wool north £25 16s, charging a rate of freight which tho farmer could afford to pay when he got only £l2 4s lor his bale. ’ Assuredly, irrespective altogether of the claims of the railwaymen that they should no longer be penalised for the losses incurred by carrying valuable goods at a below-cost rate, fairness to our secondary industries and to tho community as a whole, overtaxed so that primary producers may pay loss than they ought, demands that railway freights should ho revised forthwith, and revised substantially upwards, more especially the freights on hemp, butter, cheese, and wool, now even lower than those ruling in tho hard-struggle days of 1896. Moreover, consider the very largo concessions to the railway personnel. These the low freights arc passing on to the overburdened taxpayer, to the advantage of the producer, Who can well afford to pay them.