A SHEARING AGREEMENT QUESTIONED.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 31 July 1917, Page 4

A SHEARING AGREEMENT QUESTIONED.

From a paragraph appearing in the “Farmers’ Advocate,” -headed “A Fishy Agreement,” the Taihape Press Association ®gent is overtly, though perhaps unintentionally, accused of despatching to newspapers an untruthful message. The paragraph is obviously written without that quality of information our contemporary usually bases its statements upon; it is, however, written so loosely that the blunders therein committed should have been obvious, while being written. The message it questions was a very brief, but an absolutely accurate epitome of an “official report” of arrangements come to at a meeting *,f farmers, shearers and shearing-shed hands, handed to this journal for publication. We preferred, owing to the fact that we had not been invited to send a representative to the meeting, to have for publication a duly accredited official report which no public journal could very well refuse to publish, and as such a report was readily forthcoming, bearing the names of the signatories thereto, it was accepted. Further, we may say that whether there was any misunderstanding or not by some who attended ' the meeting, on the face of the official report, it is correct. Our object, however, is not to complain about being misrepresented, but rather to state that there seems to be widespread misunderstanding and dissatisfaction. If that is really the case why does riot the local branch of the Farmers’ Union take steps to have the views of the sheep-farming industry in this district urged in the right quarter so that every aspect of injustice and unfairness may be eliminated before it becomes to late? We would suggest to sheepfarmers that there is no advantage to be gained by allowing matters to drift. The time for full ventilation is now, and the best medium seems to us to be the Taihape Branch of the Farmers’ Union.