N.Z. FARMERS’ ONION.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 242, 21 June 1928, Page 6

N.Z. FARMERS’ ONION.

MATAMATA BRANCH. The monthly meeting of the Matamata branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union was held on Saturday night, the president, Mr. T. Prowse, being in the chair. There were also present : Messrs. J. W. Simpson, J. Price, P. Findayson senior and junior, H. Rollett, A. S. Thirlwall, H. Seed, J. Downie and A. J. Tong (secretary). An apology for absence was received from Messrs. Bowler Bros. v Farm Schools. Mr. Rollett wrote to the Department of Agriculture asking that a farm school should be held at Matamata again this winter. The department replied that only two schools were arranged for this year in the Waikato, but possibly something could be done. Mr. Rollett thought a lecture upon topdressing would be serviceable. The suggestion was approved, and the secretary was instructed to reply accordingly. It was decided to ask Mr. W. G. Wild to report on the experiments made on Mr. J. W. Simpson’s farm. Waharoa Members. Regarding Waharoa and the union, it was reported that there was a branch at Waharoa with 47 members but no president or secretary. Mr.

P. Keegan had been enrolling members. On the motion of Mr. Rollett it was decided to call a meeting of the Waharoa members, at which representatives from Matamata would attend, to find out whether it was desired to put Waharoa on a proper branch footing or join with Matamata. The secretary was instructed to write to Mr. W. Ryan on the matter. Membership. Mr. Rollett proposed and Mr. Price seconded a motion that Mr. J. W. Anderson, of Tirau, be elected a member of the Matamata branch. — Carried.

Speaking of certain old members who had once given orders on a dairy company for their subscriptions, and later had left the company and so nullified the orders, Mr. Rollett proposed that those gentlemen be invited to rejoin, and give orders on the company they are at present supplying, the past dues, since they left the original company, to be cancelled, and the members to start afresh.—Carried. Summer Time Act. The Secretary had written to the Matamata Chamber of Commerce, asking that body to support the branch in its attitude towards the Summer Time Act. The following is a copy of a letter sent by the chamber to Mr. F. F. Hockly, M.P. for Rotorua, and to Mr. Stewart Reid, M.f\ for Waikato:— “ I am instructed to write you asking for your valued support of the

request of the Matamata branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, to the effect that every farmer be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion Upon the Summer Time Act before the sam: is again reviewed by Parliament. “It is almost inconceivable that any fair-minded person thoroughly in tcuch with rural conditions could fail to come to the conclusion that the Act in its working inflicted distinct hardship upon the farming community. This expression of opinion from an organisation like our chamber, whose members may not be personally opposed to the Act, but who rightly study the farmers’ point of view and interests, should carry some weight. We therefore feel assured that you will endeavour to have the very fair and moderate request of the union given effect to by the Legislature.” To the above Mr. Hockly replied to the chrmber as follows: “ In reply to your letter of yesterday re the Summer Time Act, I am as strongly opposed as ever I was to the measure and will do all I can to prevent its reenactment. “ I have ground for strong hopes that when it comes before Parliament lext session it will be defeated. “ Regarding your chamber’s suggestion that an opportunity should be given to the farmers to express their opinion upon it before it is again reviewed by Parliament, I am afraid it is impracticable. This can only be done by a poll. This will entail expense, which can only be incurred with Parliamentary sanction. Any proposal involving public expenditure can come only from a member of the Government and must be introduced by Governor-General’s Message. No private member can propose it. Once it is proposed it brings the whole question on to the floor of the House,

and if the supporters of re-enacting the Act were sufficiently numerous they could defeat the proposal for a poll and at the same time make the Act permanent.” Mr. Reid replied in similar strain.