MORE POPULATION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXX, Issue 2476, 24 May 1888, Page 2

MORE POPULATION.

TO TII K KDITOH. Sir,—l shall bo glad if you will giro me space to make a few comments on Mr (irahan.'s letter in your Saturday's issue. 1 should be pleaded to see Agricultural Colleges and B,i:\uls of Agriculture spread over the lan 1. Institutions of this kind, spreading useful knowledge must add to tlie wealth of a nation. Our agriculturists would lie glad of chemical and scientific knowledge to tell them how to produce good crops with minimum of expenditure ; this might bo done by having our soils analysed. It is very important Lo have tho knowledge so that we may maintain our position. We want to produce tho greatest possible quantity from tho smallest possiblo area. This is economical farming. Some twelve months ago T said in a letter I wrote to your paper that it was not to our export trade wo must look to make tho masses prosperous. I say we need the same now to put our house ill order. England, America and the Continental nations of Europe are all doing large export trades. Do we find in these countries that the agriculturists, artisans, and labourers are prosperous? I trow not ! Mr Graham says we need more population to bring prosperity ; from my knowledge this appears t-> be the prevailing opinion. I say let all those who are crying out for more population, send urgent invitations to their friends and relatives to come out to us at once. Many of our settlers would be very glad to clear out if they could only manage to get comfortably away; many of our artisans and labourers are leaving us. If we cannot retain these, how can we reasonably expect to induce others to come and make this colony their home? I should like to point out that our population is some 100,000 more than it was seven years ago. Compare our position then and now. England says she has too many, and wants to get rid of a lot, to make the rest prosperous. America has 00,000,000, with plenty of room for more, Yet these people are far from being contented, for I read that in Pensylvania labourers are working for 05 cents a day, and half-clad women are feeding furnace fires. I think it useless to put more people cn the laud until those who are at present occupying it can make a living, for it is a sad fact that many of our most reliable and industrious farmers find it very difficult to even hold their ground. How can it bo reasonably expected that new arrivals could hold their own if they settled! on the land ? Organisation amongst the farmers needs to be encouraged and fostered, and I believe would do a lot of good, but this alone would not very much mend their position. We see artisans having powerful trade organisations doing all they can to keep up wages, they may keep up the rate of wages but this does net find them a market for their labour. This is what is wanted. Mr Graham says such a tiling as over-production is impossible, with this I agree, for what man in the Waikato has got all his wants supplied. It is the purchasing powor by the masses that is required, if this could be got there would not bo any complaints about hard times Mr Graham does not believe in nationalizing tho land, and states this remedy would bo worse than the disease. He believes in cheap money. Well, I know some fanners who have no incumbrance on their farms, and they till me they are getting poorer. Woll, now, if these cannot make head way, how is a man to succoed that has to pay interest no matter however small ? Cheap money would have the same effect as cheap labour, it must still farther stimulate production, and put more produce on a market that is already glutted. This would not mend matters for the producers. To my mind, nationalizing the land is the only feasable remedy for bringing back prosperity to our colonists. Is it nut a cruel thing to see the people languishing who are the foundation of any country's prosperity ? I mean our farmers. I am glad to notice that the Press is beginning to recognise this. Now admitting that agriculture is the basis; that this basis is in a very weak condition ; would it not be the wisest plan to pull down the superstructure ? Tho foundation evidently is not substantial enough to carry the vast superstructure that is erected upon it. It is no use tinkering any longer at the roof and upper stories ; twenty per cent, of people on the land are not strong enough to carry eighty per cent, in the towns. We need to face this question fearlessly ; tho sooner the better. There certainly is a remedy for these depressions, and I say it is nationalising tho land combined with co-operation. Agriculturists n«ed have no fear of a land tax, for it will be a great relief to them. It is only the unimproved value of the land that would be taxed, and according to Mr Graham that is nil at present, therefore, they would have nothing to pay. Not so with the city lands. I believe that 100 acres of land in the best business position in Auckland is worth at the present time not less than £5,000,000. This would give £300,000 per year in rent at the Tate of (i per cent, per annum. This would take 2,000,000 bushels of wheat at 3s per bushel, or the whole of the yield of SO,OOO acres at 25 bushels to the acre to pay the rent on the ahove 100 acres of land, or twelve times more wheat than has been grown in theAVaikato tiiis season, Partners, ponder on this. Labour applied to land is tho primary source of all wealth. How, therefore, can you be justly rewarded for your labours when the city lands absorb all your earnings? Those who advocate taxing the land would abolish the other taxes. —Yours, &c,, John Pahii, Hamilton, May 21st., 1888.