The Daily News FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1904. THE BUTTER SUBSIDY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 193, 19 August 1904, Page 2

The Daily News FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1904. THE BUTTER SUBSIDY.

A good may people, it would appear, have a somewhat hazy idea of the meaning of the Government subsidy towards the freezing and storage of butter prior to shipment to other countries. Some ten years ago, a contemporary points out, the dairy industry was in a struggling condition, ami to put the export trade on a more satisfactory basis the Government very wisely decided to grant a subsidy of 3Jd penboxon all export but ters, each grant being lor the purpose of helping to pay for the sto rage while in Xew Zealand. Since then the industry has been materially assisted not only in the direction indicated, but in other ways. According to the Premier, since 189 j the Government had paid £78,771 for cool storage and subsidies, £22,251 for grading of dairy produce, £22,345 for. contingencies, £1420 for dairy schools, and £592 bonus for preserved milk—a total of £125,879. Thie amount for storage alone last year was £II,OOO. To the average casual reader, and indeed the view is ■held by the Premier himself, it appears but a fair proposition to reduce this: latter amount or even abolish it now the industry is on its feet. Mr Seddon, like many others, is imbued with the idea that butter moans 'golden sovereigns and plenty of them. Speaking to a recent deputation on the subject he even weni sio far as to assert that in many casvs, where one party provided th> capital and the other the labour and shared the profits evenly, the ca|«talist got 20 per cent, on his investment. We are inclined to think tl.ut Mr Soddon has betm misinformed. It. is an aibsolute naked truth that if the free labour element is eliminated from the dairy industry there is no more profit in it—sometimes l.s - than ordinary funning. Moi cover, the industry is one in which the small settler—the backbone of the country —plays an important part, and ii there is any extra help to i>e given lie should have the preference. In a letter to the New Zealand Times some little time ago, Mr J. Marx, one of Taranaki'K most, intelligent dairy farmers, puts the case for the dairymen very plainly. First of all he deals with fla> Premier's 20 per cent, proposition. tie says: " I will give the average working of 100 acres in the bolter part of Taranaki on the share system, and will leave experienced dairymen to judge as between tiles. 1 figures and the Premier's- 20 per cent. To be as succinct as possible, take one hundred .acres at £2O, £2OOO ; forty dairy cows and necessary extra equipment', £4OO ; total, £2400. Xow for the returns. Four hundred pounds gross per annum is not an under-estimate. Half of this to sharemilkers leaves £2OO, of which fully £SO is absorbed in losses, depreciation, rates, etc., leaving £l5O net return on £2400, or 0} per cent, on the capita) invested. These figures' are based on 9d per pound for buttei fat." As regards the fairness 31' tin dairy farmers' request, Mr Marx points out that " by the Premier's showing the total average for the past nine years, covering grading, instruction, freezing subsidy, etc., is under £14,000 per annum, or say 2J per cent., call it bonus, oil the approximate value of dairy produce for the period mentioned. Wc must in justice give tlie Government every credit for past annual subsidies, and for the instruction and grading system introduced by Mr Seddon's Government, and which have been of incalculable benefit to the industry. At the same time, while the industry has been assisted to the extent mentioned, various industries and manufactures have been protected to ten times the extent. The amount voted to the d«iry industry Last year was •'lid per box of iewt ; or, on a 9d per 11) price, two-thirds i>er cent. Compare this with the heavy protection extended to boots, woollen and allied manufacturing industries. Further, anyone, acquainted with the dairy industry will endorse Ihe statement that dairying has raised Use value of properties soused, as well as those around by from £1 to £0 on the unimproved vwlue, thus directly returning every penny of llie JSJd'subsidy back to the Government. But the benefit does nut end here. As I have already shown when speaking of the Share system, £2 per acre 'W paid ii) wages. This, together With ft portion of the investors' unavoidable expenses in .dutiable goods, places dairying in the front rank as a revenue-producing industry. He compete in the open markets of the world with many disadvantages. and with Hit; money so received we ltlv compelled to pa.v our unionists fullv oae-third more than we would have to pay were we able to buy in the market in which we have ta sell. Can the country afford to starve the dairy industry in the way t?tl by the Premier, while protecting &U Other local industries ?" The quetr tii'oii raised by Mr Marx is a very pertinent one, and it in very tionafble whether it is justice, to a very valuable revenue-producing industry to withdraw all assistance.

However, it has been practically decided to grant l£d per box for the fortkeoming season. At tho heyinning oi' next season there will lie row-; sonabl.-grounds for asking that the reduced gr u nt at least .-should be j continued.