The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1891. LIME AS A FERTILISER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2169, 28 February 1891, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1891. LIME AS A FERTILISER.

We have on very frequent occasions directed the attention of farmers to the desirability of using lime as a fertiliser. This applies more especially to the Waitohi and Kakahu districts. The land in these districts would be greatly improved by the use of lime, and the farmers there ought to make an effort to procure it. In a recent issue of a Christchurch paper the following appears : “On Mr Andrew M'Farlane’a farm at Springburn, near Mount Somers, a strip of about an acre of clover, growing on his land, is showing up in marked contrast to the rest of the paddock where no lime was used. A few days ago Mr E. F. Wright and Mr John Hood, of Mount Somers, went across to see a piece of the clover cut and weighed. That from an unlimed piece of land weighed at the rate of 1 ton lewt. per acre, and that from an exactly similar measurement of limed land at the rate of 4 tons llowt. to the acre. This was the second cutting in four months. Two months ago the result obtained was at the rate of 1 ton 4cwt. and 3 tonsScwt, respectively, or a difference in favor of the limed land in four months of 7 tons I4cwt. as against 2 tons Sewt on the unlimed land. The amount of lime used was tons to the acre, which costs 15s par ton at the kilns. These results are certainly very gratifying, and should be sufficient to induce farmers to give the experiment a trial. 1 ’

That appears to us satisfactory. Above all the Kakabu people have no excuse. In their own district there is a lime kiln and any quantity of lime, as well as coal good enough to burn it. Under these circumstances it appears to us that they could do nothing better than combine together and lime their lands. The result above obtained tells its own tale. It means that land which at present can carry two or three sheep to the acre would, if treated with lime, carry six or eight sheep, and that we think would pay We commend this information to the attention of eur readers.

TAXING ABSENTEES. The following significant letter appeared in a recent issue of the St. James’ Gazette:— “ Sir George Grey, the leading and oldest of New Zealand politicians, is advocating the taxing of English bondholders and the incomes of absentees derived from the colony. It is not likely that these repudiation proposals will come into effect at present, but it is probable that eventually a slowly working financial guillotine will be applied to the ‘greedy absentee capitalist living upon hisill-gained wealth.’ This expression is used by the representative of manhood suffrage. How wise was the refusal to permit English trustees to invest in colonial bonds! 'Eaten bread is soon forgotten.’ Not a single public work of any importance has been constructed in these colonies without the assistance of English capital. It was—if history speaks aright —slightly different with the United States of America,—l am, &c., J. B. Sheridan.” The writer is no doubt an English bondholder, and hence these tears. The question is this: Mr Sheridan lives, we shall say, in England at present, and pays no tax, but if he lived in New Zealand he would have to pay a tax ef nearly half per cent. Now why should not the English bondholder contribute his share towards the good government of the country as well as the New Zealand bondholder. The English bondholder has an interest in this country, and he has a right to pay something for protecting his interest. W© have never advocated taxing English bondholders, but really we cannot see that it would be very wrong. We have! advocated taxing absentees, and taxing them severely too. If we tax large landowners to an extent that will compel them to sell the necessary complement of that is a tax on absentees that will compel them to live in the colony.

THE COMING PBEMIER. Me Beyce, in the course of his speech at Hawera recently, said “He had been strongly of opinion for some little time past that the time was fast approaching when the real settlers of the country—he did not care where they lived, in town or country —would have to forego their minor differences, and stand shoulder to shoulder in resisting the encroachments that were being made upon their real rights when men who had been in the country three or six months, and who could put their snags on their backs and leave the country when the slightest depression occured, were as entitled to vote ns settlers who had borne the burden and heat of the day, and were prepared to bear it in future.” Mr Bryce, let it be remembered, will be our next Premier if he lives for it. He is the Tory leader, and will be Sir Harry Atkinson’s successor. His words, therefore, have more than ordinary significance. They denote that if Mr Bryce ever get a strong following together in Parliament be will take away from working men the right to vote, and reduce them to political slaves. There can be no doubt but the working men have made very bad use of their votes so far, and they certainly deserve disfranchising. In the late elections they voted Liberal, and threw Messrs Bryce, Bollestou & Co. out of place and power, and now to punish them Mr Bryce wifi take away their right to vote if he ever get the chance. This is wortn remembering. Wo one ought to forget Mr Bryce’s words. I