"SERFS-WHAT?"

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 256, 27 March 1914, Page 6

"SERFS-WHAT?"

To the Editor. Sir,—A friend, in writing to ine a little while back, objects to tlie application of the word "serfs" to those working the land, and asks me to qualify remarks made by myself per medium of your columns. There's an old saw that says "one. has to be cruel to be kind," and in referring to instances in connection with dairying in Tarunaki us under its application must be obvious. Suppose .1 worker (a lover of busa work) accumulates liv the hard and dangerous toil of bushfelling a couple of hundred pounds and decides to settle down, get married, etc.. His little savings go no distance and in order io purchase a farm, he requires the assistance of a big auctioneering land investing company to finance him. It's quite legitimate, of course, and the Advances Office is of no real assistance now. Now, the rate of interest being eight per cent., is not too much out of the way either, considering all things, but the damnable imposition that required that man to sell all stock, buy all stock, buy all farm requirements (manures, sedds, etc.) from the same Arm on terms, 011 condition that he receives the financial assistance asked for, puts that man into a position that so closely resembles that of a "serf" that I defy anyone to frame a better term. Then another instance (there's dozens of them, Mr. Editor) where a man is suppose,; to be ''helped" by the system of being placed with cattle and land by big firms dealing in such and whose milk cheques are paid by the dairy company into the firm's account and the man receives a ratio for tucker. Are not those men and their wives and families nothing but "serfs!" Contented, eh? Yes, because there's no help in being otherwise, but is it right, or does it take any sting out of the word "serf"? Then we have the big man who cuts liis sections up and "places" families on shares, said families working under all sorts of disabilities, etc., and as much prospect of making an independent home as we have of shifting Egmont. let the women (the mainstay of most struggling fanners) once talk as to the conditions, then sec if there is no justification for "serfs"! It's all very well to preach at the townie: "f!et 011 the land, you lazy beggar." T know of cases where men have left the constant job of the railway service to go in the country for the' benefit (?) of their large families. Could 1 but get permission to show tile public at large how "serfs" apply. And do the interested ones think that the toiler does not notice the inequality of things that enables one man to strut the country with all conveniences while the "serfs" 011 his farms crawl into bed, worn out humans, and the wives and children ditto? No wonder the Evening Post (Wellington) in commenting 011 the "brown-faced man from the country" during the strike, adds: "it will be far better that they should be farmers in their own right than mere retainers of rural barons." And then the pioneor-fannei's, wlio, having the advantages for work through employment in railway and road work and contract busliwovk in the early days, and land at 25s per acre, who made Gd a pound for butter pay because he worked out virgin ground and who in many instances has got C-0. ,£25, and £3O per acre (so much down and the rest left 011) who can walk about, drive about, and travel here and anywhere, and the poor devil who, with his family is toiling to make both ends meet, what with the interest and renewing old ground with expensive manures, etc., is he a serf. There are cases, of course, where a man's big family has pulled him into independence, but the majority will, after a life of slavery (and there's 110 other name for it) gain the only piece of freehold lie is likely to ever own—the cemetery plot—after denying himself and family the pleasures of this life, but which others enjoy through his sacrifice. Well might Burns write:— 'lf I'm designed, you lording's slaveBy Xatnre's law designed— Why was an independent wish E'er planted in mv mind? etc.,

I hen. turning to tlio impositions of .the merchant barons, dukes, etc.,—the other l)i-;»iu-li ot the system that allows j the exploitation of the producer, that helps in a large degree, the extension of the "*erf" conditions, and which is fast approaching the "last straw" stage. Is my friend satisfied there it 10 110 "serfs?" I know of many instances where voting men born 011 tlie land, lived and worked 011 it until reaching man's estate and wishing to make homes for themselves, have iji-en forced to pay high prices for land, and then find that (he rates of interest. cost of ie<|iii\emenls to renew' (he ground, and the necessaries of life make the condition of their lives but one long drudgery with 110 prospect of hef.

ferment unless some OLiier silly beggar comes along and, manipulated by the land agents, oilers an advance in p:Vf and "have a try." As several have informed. me, "day work is preferable to such a system of slavery, and on the first chance 1 get I am out of it." 1 can only repeat that it is only by gripping the land question on progressive lilies that this trouble, this serfdom of the mass, will come to an end. or at the least, be | considerably lessened, and still further repeat that it is onlv through supporting a progressive liberal policy that it can be brought about. I.el those win) sullcr think on it.—l am, etc., •TOE. B. SIMPSON. Durham road.