FARMERS UNION AND POLITICS

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9425, 22 April 1909, Page 2

FARMERS UNION AND POLITICS

The following appears in the Dominion .—The decision of the chairman of the Kimbolton branch of the "Farmers’ Union to resign his membership of that body on the ground that it had become a political body shows a lamentable incapacity on liis part to see things steadily and see them whole. Mr Orabb objected at the annual meeting of the branch that “right throughout the weight «£ the Union during the election liad been thrown on the side of one political party, and he could oniy_ come to the conclusion that it was, to all intents and purposes, a party organisation. That being so, as a member of the Liberal party, he felt that he was in a false position, and therefore begged to tender,, his resignation as a member.” It is quite true that the Farmers’ Union is, andjshonld be in a large measure a political body. The farming industry, which is the main foundation of the country, ds peculiarly capable of receiving injury from ignorant or unsympathetic legislation. Tbe Socialists, the Labour party, and other politicians of the city unfamiliar with, or indifferent to, the interests of the country settlers, do not hesitate to put forward proposals lor legislation which 1 would press heavily on that industry. The extreme Socialists would confiscate the land of the free farmer, ans the Labour party would impose restrict tions, like those which they attempted, through the Conciliation Board, to put upon the farmers of Canterbury, which would make the calling of the agriculturist unendurable. Both these parties are well orgahised, and attempt to further their projects by political means. There are also to be con; sidered tbe city politicians who, knowing little of the farmer’s problems, tend inevitably to be rushed towards destructive measures by tbe zealots named. To combat these influences, which menace tbe very foundations of the chief productive power of the country, it Is Imperatvie that tbe farmers should combine and act politically, after the example of their opponents. The Farmers’ Union mast be a political body, in so far that it supports those candidates for Parliament whose views are favourable to agricultural interests. Bat a distinction here comes in, which Mr Orabb should have been able to see. Though it must be a body, in tbe general sense, the Farmers’ Union need not be, and it has never been, a political body in the party sense. The Union has never supported or opposed Parliamentary candidates because they have belonged to one or other of the main divisions in the House. It has simply and naturally supported those candidates who were acquainted with the needs cf farmers, and oonld be trusted to defend them, ai ’far as possible, from such political influences in the State as are opposed to the well-being of the farming industry. In several cases the Union has put up as Parliamentary candidates members from its own ranks, who are peculiarly conversant with farming needs, and they have in some oases been elected. It has also, very naturally, and without farther political cause, supported candidates who were opposed to the extension ' of f’e leasehold policy. Into these considerations the party aspect, in a political sense, has not entered. The political policy of the combined farmers has heeu, and is, no more than the policy of self. preservation, which ante dates and over-weighs all party systems.