LABOUR LEGISLATION.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 193, 24 August 1901, Page 3

LABOUR LEGISLATION.

TO THE EDITOR. g trt> —t want to back u'p “ Weary flillia ” on this question. I reckon farmers have a better time than poor lubonrers like myself, though the fault is mostly mine. Way back in the etlr’y flsrs I ea-no out here, and instead of pking up land, like many of'my males did, I ju-t g't a j-h here and there, nmetinu'f harvesting, but never anything itanly. I’m a married man with a fairly ,j,-3 (imily, and when I’m idle a few U 73 or weeks it means we have a pull to etrHighf'ag'iirt. But my old -oatss re all right. They have their hard ; n ,, too, hut a good year pute them on ], e ; r l.vTg and with something to spare [acre’s no reason why theyabou'd get uen at from ids to £1 a week and tucker jhile. other men pay more th.n double bit for less hours and easier work. They .ugotn't to be left but of the insurance acket, and I don’t t hink 1 hey Will be, nlv our Premier is shuffling a bit and toesn'C care to tell them that.—l am, ;tO., Casual,

TO THS EDITOR. S'B,—-Your correspondent ' “ Weary ffillie” never worked or> a farm, that’s uiiiei t, or lie would have some claim to ii.i name and *ee that tanning me ms ,mg hoars of hard work and no “ sitting lowa waiting for the crops to gro w mid Bike him rich.” How, I usk, can a irmer be expected to pay £l2 or £3 per reek for his hands when he can’t ruse to price of his produce a ( d has to meet tecompai'iiou of the world (including k of co'-mission agon’s, all e.'ger to ; eta !:;r!e mofit off whit they' haven’t o'hd for) 1 “ Weary Willie” simply, ,lks t.. ;i. ; £nse, and if we have much mreoiti'o legislation he upnolls, I’m :ci'g lo .'south America or somew.aero ise where a man c>n gat a chance of a ;fodt> on bis work - and outlay. You h’t s- e many rich farmers. They may w co m fori ably rtf, but that’s often the tsult of long years of ilabour by themelve« and families, who hive no lime to wmplaia of being “weary.”—l am, itc, -Fakmsb.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—By your issue of' the 17th inst. I -ee ihat Mr SeOdon said that tho Compsv.saiinn for Accidents Act did not, ipply to farmers. Mr G. W. Ilussed aked, " W 'll, whv should it not apply o farmers ! ” Air Seddon answered, "We have the Courts of law, and when aey decide that the Act d ies app'y'J'o formers it ia-time enough to bring in an linen luient.” If Mr Seddoo is right, then s firmer is not an industrious person and bis calling is not an “industrial pa--, suit.” Here'is ani -e bit of aw-making. The men who sit in the House and pass lu Act, and then, when it becomes law, do not know the meaning o! it until nine Judge tells them *hat they meant; Bit why should not this Act apply to formers as well as anyone else ? Does thr fanner-give ad his produce to the poor cud farm for very love of fanning ? Ii not he as well able to in-ure his iren it t’ e man who works for him in the •hresher, chaffeutter, and the'contractor »ho harvests his crop, ploughs, sows, ttd works his l»tid ? -I know a lot of men h this di-itcl-t who have been contractor! hr farm work for twenty years and over, und they are still contractors, and no better off than when they started, though much the worse for wear. I also bow lots of farmers in this district who started in a small way farming, and added to their holdings acre after acre, Wd after field, until their farms have ?rown into large estates. 1 was told the ° her evening that a -poor working man *b wanted a well-sinker had to insure him first and pay 10s for it before he kreadow the man to start. Tnis means hit the well will cost 10a more than it •biild. Is he more able to pay than a former with a good bank account-? — •Mi, etc , Lover of Fa ir Play.