N.Z. FARMERS' UNION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 29 May 1907, Page 2

N.Z. FARMERS' UNION.

wixli xerox pkovixcial cox-l-'EKIC.XCK. I'or Press Association.

V.Yllingtun. Slay 2S. The'nnnual conference of delegates fr..u l.riin. ii-.-.s in tin- Wellington Provincial District of the Xcw Zealand Farmers' Union, upi-nud today at Levin. The president, .Mr. J. (;. Wilson, in the course of hU annual address, said, with reference to the Laud Mill, that there was certainly n bum tide desire tor land, 11 desire which wan now met by a great raffle system. The public was not alh.r.vud lo coi.duct a ruffle without a permit from the (ioveniment, lint the lioveni.fuent itself perpetrated the system. The desire for land was only partly appeased by this system of (loveniiuent rallle, and the bona fide settler, and the. man competent to work the land wan usually pusicd out by the speculator. Whatever bonelit the ballot system had been in the pnst, it was now" n failure. At no time in the history of the Union has (here jccii greater necessity for calm judgment and fair criticism, and | placing the (rue position of the hind beMore (lie rolaiiy. The I'nion, by circuUnlin:- a pamphlet dealing with tiie nuesjix'ii. had helped malcrially to show the 1 "one what the Land Kill really meant. At present [here miv three big mpcni m New Zc.laml which were favorable to the Land Bill, „„d against the Union's platlorm-two in Wellington and one in Chrisleluirch. Mach of these papers owned land of the. value of £20,000 or .1:25,000; yet the Union would not term them monopolists, although they were not as a rule very precise alwiul the terms they applied to the Union and those associated with it. They were very free in speaking of the land monopolist in the country with his £IO,OOO worth of property, hut they had nota' ing to say about themselves with £25,000 in the towns.

AMENDMENT CARRIED FAVORING LIMITATION. Per Press Association. Wellington, May 28. Mr. Higgle (Wangnnui) moved that no Land Bill will meet with the approval of this Union that does not contain tha right tu procure the freehold.—Carried unanimously.

Captain Hewitt. (Pnliuerston) moved—"That the Conference urge the executive to maintnin Btcady pressure ngainst the proposed land Bill, especially as to fixing hard and fnst limits on the fanning industry." He claimed that the principle involved in limitation of area was wrong.

Sir. Moore (Slakuri) said he believed the State was impoverished by land being held in wide areas. | Sir. Crabbe (Kimbolton) moved an amendment--"That this Conference, while considering the Government land proposals crude iind unworkable, is not opposed to the principle of limitation of area." The mover aid his branch felt it was high time to speak out, and that the executive of the Union did not, on the question of limitation, represent the feeling of the majority of members. If it was possible to agree to any portion of the Laud Bill, they ought to do so, and not condemn it altogether. There was a feeling that the Union was run iu the interests of big landowners. Sir. Hughes (ifarton) seconded the amendment.

In the debate which followed, the opinion was expressed that it would be disastrous for land to be idlo till it could be taken up in small areas; that aggregation was due to the desire of fathers to get land for their sons; that it was surprising a flovemment which supported limitation should allow aggregation to go on; that if the Union did not support limitation it would be at the end of its tether, and that the increase of holdings showed that small areas were not sufficient.

some, method of cutting up estates which some mehtod of cutting up estates which would not do injury, they might npprovCfit. Sir. \V. ,T. Birch, a member of the executive, said he would bo quite willing to support the amendment if Sfr Crabbe added tint words "under some equitable system."

This suggestion was adopted and the amendment was carried by 20 votes to