Agriculture v. Pasture.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 409, 13 September 1876, Page 2

Agriculture v. Pasture.

Sil.—The Editor of the Herald in a leader this morning, writes so unmistakably as Secretary to the Agricultural and Pastoral Society, that it is difficult to dissociate him from a connection with the ■real cause of the article in question ; and his “ funk,” if I may use the term, is easily accounted for. His arguments, if such they can be termed, are against himself ; and I, for one, fail to see the 'force of of them. He advocates the hostility as he calls it, inside the present Society, which he pretends to deprecate outside of it. Why, I require to know, should it be necessary for the “ agriculturists in this district to muster strongly ” * * * “to enforce the due recognition of their interests,” unless they have already been “snubbed?” The Secretary’s words denounce himself and the Society ; and plainly prove how undesirable it is to have editors of newspapers, officers of such Societies ; they cannot take up an independent line of action, and their criticism is naturally warped, to their own prejudice and that of the public.—l am, See., Farmer. The Agricultural and Pastoral Meeting. Sib. —A very general feeling pervades the community that the Agricultural interests of the bay are to be sacrificed to the Pastoral, and yet all history has testified to the fact that nations and peoples prosper in proportion to the extent of the agricultural development of the country. Putting population, and consequently consumption, in an agricultural district side by side with a pastoral one, we are at once furnished with an undeniable argument in fovor of the former. Why, therefore, the best land of the district should be locked against agriculture, and its growth systematically snubbed, if not altogether ignored, is a most astonishing thing. But the continuance of the system is a species of serfdom that sits rather uneasily upon the shoulders of the class from which so much comes. The energies of the “ tillers of the soil " are well known. These want to be directed to export and not to import what this district requires. It can, not only support its inhabitants, but also grow abundance to be sold in other markets. Every time I hear of or see a vessel laden with provisions that should be from here, coming from other districts, whose industry is rewarded at the expense of our apathy, the irony is so cutting, that I feel inclined to be ashamed of a district that is lauded everywhere for its fertile resources ; while its inhabitants are kept in financial bondage by the dearness of even indispensable things. Why, sir, the district is "Poverty" al!over. The following goods can be had at Wellington for the prices annexed, and the freight between here and there cannot make the vast difference of price : —Good family tea, 2s; cocoa, Is 8d ; rice, 3d; best oatmeal, 2jd Canterbury, hams, Is 2dj bacon,- Is, uiliUHSTiy potatoes, 5s per cwt.; pickles, 7d per bottle ; cheese, lid per lb; crushed loaf sugar, s [d ; and all other goods in proportion. “ Moderation ” is quite right in stating that if a man wants to live and dress well, and acquire property in an incredibly short time, nothing like going into “ trade," it pays. Reasonable profits are allowable—excess is imposition —a kind of robbery.—l am, See., Warning. The Agricultuial and Pastoral Society. Sir, —The Secretary of the Agricultural and Pastoral Society in a leading article in to-day’s Herald, commenting on the proposed “Farmers’ Agricultural Association” is in error in the first place in supposing that such a club must necessarily be in direct opposition to the existing Society. Instead of being so, it was up to this but an unavoidable consequence of the strongly and pointedly admitted ability of the present Society to pay due attention to agricultural pursuits. When Mr. Walsh’s very reasonable proposition for. a second show in the interest of agriculture in the district, fell to the ground, and when those admissions wore made “ he convened a meeting in order to form a Farmers’ Association with the express object of fostering and eiicuuragiug

matters agricultural in Poverty Bay.” But hero Mr Secretary, writing ex cathedra, follows on to give the most cogent reason why the agriculturists should muster nnd band together for self preservation. He says : —“ We need not point out that such a society, if formed, would be in direct opposition to the existing institution, and it is for that reason we disapprove of Mr. Walsh's project.” Opposition to what ? To the express object of fostering and encouraging matters agricultural. Thank you Mr. Secretary for jour candour. We admit with Mr. Secretary, that agriculturists are in a minority here ; the prices of all produce too plainly show that, but that we can muster strong enough to “ niake our views heard” - and “ enforce recognition of our interests," is now what we shall endeavour to prove. The excuse of “ just after the flood,” does’nt wash out the opinion of -‘Mr Walsh and others, that agriculture is in danger of being slighted by the Pastoral and Agricultural Society.” You will observe the significance of the name being changed in the last sentence of the Herald's article to “ Pastoral aud Agricultural.” It was never so opportune that agriculturists in the Bay should look to their prospects, than at this moment. We see that Patutahi is in the scales and wavering in doubt of turning to sheep interest or more beneficial occupation.—Yours, See., Agkicola. Gisborne, Sep. 12,1876