VAILE’S SCHEME.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2353, 9 August 1887, Page 3

VAILE’S SCHEME.

TO THE EDITOR. ‘ Sin,—Replying to ‘‘Farmer No. 2,” and my knowledge of the feelings of my fellow settlers re Vaile’s scheme, t will place before your readers the means by which I arrive at my conclusions, viz., that it is not this scheme that is wanted, but a heavy redaction in freights on tire products of the* land. Take, say, a 500-acre farm,, distance full length of the present railway line. Products ; 40 trucks of cattle, reduction, £1 per truck, ;(M0; 2000 bushels of wheat, 2d, £lO 13s 4d; and smaller lines on similar scale. This would show a direct saving of some £OO, and the average would apply to farms of 50 acres to 1000. Now, for tho passenger part of the business, which I conclude to bo Mr Yailo’s primary object: Faro to Auckland, 2s (id ; present fare, 14s; ■saving, 11s (id. Tho argument used by the advocates of the scheme is that every person will travel twice where he now goes once. Hence the settler saves 4(is in passage money, but as you cannot move in this country without expenses, £2 per trip is a very moderate estimate for a journey extending over three days. Wo will suppose a settler ordinarily goes to town twice '• year. Ho will under the new inducement double his visits. In doing so he saves 46s in faros, but adds £4 to the items of expenses, and loses six days’ work, which, at day’s wages, equals .'ills. Tho loss therefore by adopting Vaile’s system totals 70s. Whereas, by the reduced freights as hero proposed, tho profit or saving would amount to £OO per annum, which would go a long way towards paying a year’s wages for an extra man. Touching the labour question, if the tone of my letter was dictatorial, it was unconsciously so. I have found, in a twenty years’ experience as an employer, that the dictating, if any, has been on the other side. Re “Farmer John,” I know him not, but should have been proud to have seen my name at the foot of such a letter, and am fully convinced that be can speak for himself. “Farmer No. 2” appears to be a great admirer of Mr Russell. No wonder, they are a wordy pair, but I am satisfied that many of your readers will with the writer conclude that both are, if eloquent, certainly impracticable.—Yours truly, Farmer.