MR WHYTE'S LETTER.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2299, 5 April 1887, Page 3

MR WHYTE'S LETTER.

TO THK EDITOR. Sir,—Mr J. B. Whyte's letter on " Why fan. "ng does not pay in Waikato ?" has, lam sure been read with interest all through the district. It would appear, however, that he somewhat underestimates the purposes and objects of the Railway Reform League. The facts Mr Whyte states as to the difference in the sum realised by the producer and the amount paid by the consumer are ; but it would bo a mistake to suppose that all mutton sells for 4.W per lb, or that all beef brings Bd. Large quantities of meat are sold in Auckland at very low prices, and' it is only the bettor class of customers who are charged the rates Mr Whyte quotes. Even m Queen-street plenty of meat is sold at lower prices than we pay in Waikato. Not only so, but as price is regulated by the demand, and by the current rates, we shall find on enquiry that Waikato graziers are only companions in misfortune to their fellows throughout the colony,— poor consolation though that may be. Mr Whyte's illustration as to potatoes is an unhappy one. He says if 5s per ton were takan off the freight, that would mean an additional profit of £2 per acre, but he states this would be no benefit to the farmer, as even if prices were not forced down the n* bv the increased production (which, he s'iys, they inevitably would be), he fears " that the os would also go into some other pocket than the farmers'. The same might be said about everything we produce." Does not this mean that no matter how much freights on produce were lowered, the farmer can get no benefit frnm'tho reduction ? I do not think the farmer will accept that. Let me illustrate. Suppose a man, ten miles out of Auckland, sends ten tons of potatoes into market, paying 5s a ton freight; and a man at Cambridge sends the same quantity of potatoes to market, and pavs 13s per ton freight. Does not the former pocket the 8s per ton difference, for both lots sell for the same amount? Of course, I may be told the Cambridge man gets his land for a less price than the man at Otahuhu. That may be so. but it is the difference in the freights which gives the Otahuhu land a greater value than that at Cambridge.

The result of the tremendous handicap placed on the distant settler is that he produces beef, whereas, if freights were as low as they ought to be, he would produce hay for export to Sydney, horse carrots, potatoes, and other crops of that class, instead of confining his attention almost exclusively to beef. Let Mr Whyte think what an increased profit of only £3 per acre would mean ; and if that could be got we should not have good farms offered for rent and lease, as at present, at 8s to 10s per acre, and going begging at that. In opposition to Mr Whyte, I think that the freights are to blame for stifling the production of many classes of produce which would spring into importance were freights reduced by say two-thirds. In the counties of Wuipa, Waikato, Raglan and Kawhia, the estimated yield of potatoes this year is only 4505 tons, whilst the population is 8731. The quantity available for export must therefore be small, but if that 5a Mr Whyte wrote of were taken off, allowing a margin on the sale price, the area in that article alone ought to be doubled. The same remarks apply to hay, horse carrots, etc., the heavy freights being sufficient to frighten the producer because they leave no margin. But, Sir, the cases—meat and potatoesselected by Mr Whyte are only partial illustrations at best of the railway tariff. Referring to the reduction of the rates on meat, he says—" Now, although that saving is not to be despised, will anyone tell me that it has any material effect upon the question of whether farming will pay or not ? Would that reduction bring us one extra settler? Would any of our farmers at the end of the year really feel that a saving had been made?" All these questions may be answered straight out —No. But that one little matter of meat freight rep- I resents, as Mr Whyte says, only £2000 per year, and does he suppose the Railway League are working and fighting for a paltry result like that? Surely Mr Whyte is here himself "barking up the wrong tree." The case Mr Whyte selects is only one of many. The Railway League look for much larger things than what he suggests. They look for enhanced values of property; for the creation of a large country population, giving a near and ready market to the farmer, for the influx of settlers where the railway charges will allow a margin; for the cheapening of freights, not only on what the farmer produces, but also on what he uses—fencing wire, building material, store cattle, as well as all the necessaries of life; and above all, they hope to assist the farmer by lightening the burden of taxation throught lessening the. fearful loss on the railway at present, and making them into a revenue (or at any rate pay interest) instead of, as at present, swallowing up vast sums of money annually to pay interest on their cost. I think that under these circumstances the League would do well to continue barking up the same tree, and certainly the members cannot be expected, now they have put their hand to the plough, and scored so great a victory, to accept Mr Whyte's suggestion and take up the question of how to abolish the the credit' system. I feel sure we all agree that it would be a good thing if that could be abolished and if Mr Whyte proposes some practical means of removing that part of the evil the producers suffer under at present, the Railway League will heartily support him ; in the meantime the League is likely to fight on for Railway Reform as the most important step towards securing the prosperity of the producing districts, and in doing so count upon the active support and hearty co-operation of the Waikato and Waipa members.—l am, sir, yours truly, G. W. Russell. Cambridge, April Ist, 1887. P.S.—Since writing the above, your.leading article of this day has appeared, which fully deals with several of the points of Mr p Whyte's letter, and anticipates some of what I have written. April 2nd, 1587.— G. W. Russell.