CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 December 1926, Page 11

CORRESPONDENCE.

OUR LAND PROBLEMS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —In reading the views expressed by the Hon. A. D. McLeod at a meeting held at Auckland to discuss the deteriorated land problem, he seems genuinely concerned at the position existing, that of farmers not being able to carry on, but having to let their holdings fall back in spite of their fully sustained efforts to make a do of things, thus losing the one and only source of revenue for New Zealand, the products derived from the growing of grass in a greater or lesser degree, and of a better or poorer quality. As the prosperity of the grower, and also the country, depends entirely on the price that this can be accomplished, the governing factor (since Nature’s I stores of accumulated plant food have become more or less exhausted and must be substituted artificially and scientifically) is therefore the price of artificial plant food, notably phosphates and manures. The Hon. McLeod, in his investigations of land problems, seems to studiously ignore this fact. On the other hand, we see him and the Hons, the Ministers of Agriculture, past, and present, vigorously defending in Parliament and on the public platform the organisation that not only fixes the price of all manures available, but also are able to boycott anything in the form of competition that is liable to break in on their little monopoly. In spite of the fact that New Zealand is literally starving for the want of cheap supplies of manures, we see our Government handing unconditionally our supplies of the richest phosphatie manures in the world over to this trade organisation as if we were depending on the sale of manures for our existence as a country, instead of depending on being able to grow grass as cheaply as possible. For instance, we pay £6 per ton, or so for slag containing 17.20 per cent of P2 05 phosphoric aeid, or7s6d per unit, although modern slag contains no appreciable quantities of phosphates. The world is supplied with unlimited quantities, and the law is complied with. Compare the above with a shipment of Government Nauru rock 84.86 per cent, of Ca 3 P2 OS, or the equivalent of 39 per cent, of P2 05, which is landed at Is Id per unit, and could be made available for use at Is 4d, but the cheapest we get any of it now is 3e, and then insufficiently ground and put into large second-hand bags. In the form of super water soluble, therefore, in a wasteful form, Ca2 H 9 P2 OS, equal to 23 per eent. of P2 05, we pay 4s 8d per unit. These little differences in prices of the most important thing we, as a nation of grassgrowers have to buy, make all the difference to our prosperity or otherwise. Now, sir, not only are the effects of this avoidable exploitation affecting our back country, but it is equally imperative to bring about a reduction here, or else face the position of writing down our land values another £7 to £lO per acre, with its well-known consequences. Under the present Nosworthy administration, with its “Yes, No” Premier and Cabinet Ministers, and large following of “patent” members of Parliament, there, is no chance whatever of having any advantage from our cheap supplies of raw material politically. My suggestion is that while the specially catered for blenders (study personnel of Control Board and allocation of produce) are busy blending our superfine butter with Argentine and Siberian to bring them up to standard, our factory directors take up the matter of manures, and thus give us a clianee to compete with our foreign competitors for our dairy produce markets, for whom our fancy legislators have so kindly opened the door.—l am, etc., J. FEAVER Junr. Opunake, December 1. THE APOLOGIES OF THE CONTROL BOAR D. (To the Editor.) I Sir, —You published in your issue of November 30 certain statements and expressions made by Mr. 11. D. Forsyth, which are of such an extraordinary nature as to warrant some comment. Mr. Forsyth joins with Mr Thacker in claiming certain cables and information as the “property” of the board. Seeing that this board has already filched from its rightful owners many thousands of tons of dairy produce, it is rather astonishing that any of its members should now pose as the champions of the “rights of property.” However, even an eleventh hour repentance from Mr. Forsyth may, perhaps, be taken as an indication of an early return on the part of the board to ordinary commercial principles.

Mr. Forsyth’s plaintive plea that the merchants will not advance to this omnipotent body such amounts as the market warrants is a sad confession of failure, and also a grave reflection on the sagacity of Mr. William Grounds, who. it will be remembered, made repeated assurances that the board would be able to make greater advances than could any individual dairy company. He now admits that application for larger advances have been refused, and the fact entirely bears out the reiterated warnings of the Free Marketing League that a flat rate of advance made to a. semipolitical board must obviously ’ e on a more conservative basis. It may interest your readers to learn that during a term of over twenty-three years as a dairy company secretary I have never yet had the experience of having a request for or the amount of any advance refused or queried, and the explanation is simple, namely, that the goodwill and confidence existing between dairy company and agent constitutes a credit which no dislocation of prices or sudden slump in values could impair. This confidence and this credit have nowbeen broken by the action of politicians grossly ignorant of the first principles of economies. Unfortunately, it i the dairyman who must alone pay, as I have yet to learn that the huge emoluments of the board or its staff have been in any way reduced, neither has the obnoxious and extortionate levy been diminished.—l am. etc., JAS. HINE. Waitara, Nov. 30.