FARMERS’ UNION.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8760, 11 March 1907, Page 3

FARMERS’ UNION.

Marion Branch. I A largely attended meeting of above was held on Saturday, Mr Edward Newman, presiding. The Chairman welcomed Mr W. J. Birch. He said they were all glad t to see him back again. Mr Birch had been a strong and active sup- | porter of the Farmers’ Union. In reply, Mr Birch said he was glad to be amongst old friends again. They had had a most enjoyable trip. He had been asked to speak about what he had seen and heard, but this would be difficult to do in a short address. He hoped at some u future date to give a more interesting account of his travels and to have his address illustrated. Ho had collected a fine scries of photographs, and ho would have these reproduced. Mr Birch then gave a brief account of his trip, which was full of striking interest. Mr and Mrs Birch called at many of the Eastern cities, and visited places of historic achievements. A hearty vote of thanks to Mr Birch for his address was carried by acclamation. C The Railway Department wrote, asking for a guarantee of £B3 Cs 8d j in connection with the Momohaki trip. The guarantee for a train Palmerston to Momohaki is £5:3 13s 4d, and from Marten to Taihape an extra £3O 13s 4d.— It wsis resolved (Messrs Simpson Houghton) that c the Department be written to asking for the Hunterville train to be de p layed to connect with the excursion train from Momohaki, as the Branch considers the amount of guarantee is J excessive for the Hunterville line. It was agreed to pay the guarantee required for the train from Palmerston. The Chairman proposed the fol- . lowing motion—“ That while disap- 1 proving of the methods for the a limitation of private estates pro- I posed under the new Laud Bill, be- j cause such would lead —(1) To diffi- j culty in borrowing freely on mort- , gage; (2) to raising the rate of 1 interest, and consequently to decreasing the price of laud; (3) as being unjftst to those persons who - have purchased lands without restric- ~| tious of any kind; the Union is pre- J pared to support any equitable scheme which will prevent the aggregation of large areas in the hands C of individuals. ’ ’ t In speakiuglgto the motion,s»Mr ] Newman said the Union must define its position in regard to this ques- I tion. All sections of people and both parties in the House approve of j limitation. The question of limitation of private lauds had never come , before the Union, and in view of the J fact that the next conference will be held in May, it was necessary to pass a motion so that the subject could bo debated. It was the methods proposed by tho Laud {Bill that wore objectionable—limiting buyers by tho £15,000 clause, and at the same time compelling owners . of estates valued at over £50,000 to sell the excess within 10 years, - which were unjust. The resolution, if passed, would go to the Provincial Executive, and, if passed there, to the Colonial Conference. Mr O. G. Houghton seconded tho [ motion, and claimed that the country would prosper by tho limitation of area. The Union should oppose the aggregation of largo estates, otherwise it would bo acting against : its own interests. The small settler would think the Union was run solely in the interest of the largo laud owner, with tho result that they would refuse to he identified with the Union. Mr W. J. Birch said that lie quite agreed that largo estates were not good. Tiie practical way of breaking up these would bo by taxation. Mr J. W. Marshall said that while he was of opinion that the aggregation of property was detrimental to tho country, the method of avoiding it would be very difficult to discover. He did not think there was a tendency to aggregation of laud, and there was no danger of permanent aggregation. The land was uivided amongst the children at the death of the owner. The limitation of area would be limiting a man’s enterprise, and it was not right to do so. It seemed to him that land owners and farmers were only existing for the benefit of the commnuity. - Mr Brnoe considered a graduated tax would meet the case. The Chairman said the motion was to affirm the principle of limitation of private areas. Mr Marshall wanted to know where the line would bo drawn if limitation of areas was favoured. Mr Beckett said if they favoured limitation without saying what they wanted it would he playing into the hands of the Government, and they would- find a Bill carried against their wishes. He urged that it was the dutv of the Union to state just what was required. It _ was no use affirming limitation without suggesting a method. He moved an amendment, ■which was seconded hy Mr D. O. Teuuent, as follows: That in the. opinion of this meeting it should be left to the Executive to make such suggestions for alterations in the Land Bill as will meet with tho general approval of tho various brandies. . The amendment was carried by two votes.