SOUTHLAND AND STAGNATION.

Southland Times, Issue 18830, 25 May 1920, Page 4

SOUTHLAND AND STAGNATION.

The farmers of Southland have not had to wait long for a champion. This morning Mr P. Arnett, of Seaward Downs, writes to us in reply to the criticisms of “Consistent Observer” and he makes a forceful demand for evidence in support of that correspondent’s charges that the province is suffering from stagnation. We find little in Mr Arnott’s letter with which we can quarrel and that little refers to ourselves rather than to the province. Mr Arnott seems to have misunderstood our attitude. When we were referring to “Consistent Observer’s” letter on Saturday we made no suggestion that the farms of Southland were “stagnant” In fact we combated such a contention while pointing out that “Consistent Observer's” charges embraced the entire province, town and country alike. Our reference to the ilydro-F.lcclric Scheme was not intended to suggest that it was bound to be successful—although we take this opportunity of saying that wc have absolutely no doubt that the Southland Times iu 1940 and of even earlier date will have no difficulty in proving that fact. We quoted the voting upon the Monowai scheme, to show that the farmers of Southland were looking ahead, that if a proposition making for progress, a scheme that gave promise of better things in the future was put before them they were eager 10 support it and make the most of it. With all deference to Mr Arnott we submit that this fact betokens a progressive frame of mind as much as the earnest desire in dairy farmers to take advantage of the presence of ’nigh-grade stud stock to improve his herds. For the purposes of our argument the success or otherwise of the Monowai scheme need not lie considered; the all-importaut fact is that the farmers — who provided fits .handsome majority that the scheme gained were prepared to give enthusiastic support to a project that aimed definitely at progress. That fact, wc say, is indisputable evidence of a progressive spirit end is an effective reply to any charge that the man on the land, upon whom so much depends, is stagnant. Mr Arnott is in agreement with us in reminding “Consistent Observer” that he has supplied no proof of his assertions and he has carried the discussion into a new field by his suggestion that the secondary industries, especially those which have to do with supplies lor farmers, have not been able to satisfy his needs. It must bo admitted that a great deal of this shortage has been due to circumstances over which the province has unfortunately little or no control. Wc allude, of course, to the difficulties arising out of the ship.ping disabilities and to the labour shortage. It was to the fur-reaching effects of the labour shortage that we were referring when we said that the province was in need of many pairs of hands. The inter-deprndencc of the primary and secondary industries is such that we cannot hope to advance the one while we arc totally ignoiing the other. Mr Arnott in his reply to “Consistent Observer” has opened up the

whole question of the province’s future and he has directed us to a field upon which a discussion valuable alike to town and

country can he carried on