41

a—9a.

As I have said above, any applications to deal with these second mortgages and to pay off the second mortgagee must be dealt with on their merits. We have, as a matter of fact, paid off second mortgages and have made advances for the purpose. Soldiers who have been unsuccessful in their Farming Operations. The Inquiry Board reports that out of 379 farms inspected, in 257 oases the soldiers had. been unsuccessful in their farming operations, this representing 70 per cent, of failures. A careful analysis of the farms reported on by the Enquiry Board shows that there have been eleven absolute failures, or 3 per cent, of the total ; while there are forty-nine doubtful cases, representing 13| per cent, of the farms inspected, some of these men, however, having a fair prospect of success under proper guidance ; and that 83J per cent, of the soldiers have proved successful in their farming operations. In considering and determining whether the soldier farmers have been a success or a failure, it should be borne in mind that it could never have been expected that a. huge number of men commencing farming operations could reasonably expect to get into " easy street "in three or four years, if this were possible, everybody would be farming. The, real question to be determined is whether these men have a reasonably good prospect of ultimately " making good." In the opinion of the Land Board, 83i_- per cent, have a fairly good prospect of ultimate success. In fact, if the Inquiry Board hold the opinion which it has given expression to, that 70 per cent, of these soldier farmers visited by it were unsuccessful in their farming operations, why did it recommend such wholesale cancellation of arrears and other concessions which would cost the, country so much money ? In contrast to this, the Land Board has not in any case made a recommendation for a concession to a soldier, unless there were good grounds for believing that he would eventually prove successful. Stock provided by the Department for Soldier Settlers. In this connection the Inquiry Board makes the following assertions: " In many cases failure of settlers to ' make good ' is attributable to the high prices and the poor quality of the dairy cows provided, many of which were culls and unprofitable. We have evidence that settlers were not allowed to sell unprofitable stock unless prepared to repay the difference between purchase and selling price in cash." These statements arc quite contrary to fact. In every case the best endeavours were made to purchase good stock for the soldiers, the best expert advice being utilized. With the very great demand existing when the soldier-settlement scheme was in full swing, it was not possible to go about picking the best cows out of particular herds. Any dairy-farmer knows that a good herd of dairy cows cannot be built up by magic; that it is only by careful culling over a period, of years that a really good herd can be obtained. There was never any restriction put upon men getting rid of their unprofitable stock ; in fact, soldiers have always been encouraged to do so. There is this point, however —that if the Department had advanced £100 to purchase ten dairy cows and these cows were eventually sold for £50, the soldier's current account would be debited with the deficiency. Every soldier understands this perfectly well, and it is, of course, only an ordinary businesslike proceeding. Soldier Partnerships. Under this heading the Inquiry Board, says : "We find that partnerships of soldier farmers have usually proved unsatisfactory, and we recommend that they be discouraged. Also that, in cases where one partner has left the farm, prompt measures should be taken by the Crown for the dissolution of the partnership, and the position of the remaining settler clearly defined. In cases where the remaining partner has proved his capacity he should be allowed to retain the farm." The Inquiry Board has made no discovery in regard to these partnerships between soldiers being generally unsatisfactory. From the very inception, I think, all Commissioners and Land Boards have recognized this, and have done their utmost to discourage partnerships. However, we all know that on returning from active service the soldier liked a mate associated with him in his venture. I suppose it was the natural outcome of war service, where there were always so many men together. The position in regard to these partners, however, was that they were joint mortgagors to the Crown, and the Crown was mortgagee. The partnership was entirely a matter for the partners themselves to carry on or dissolve, and it was no function of the Government to attempt in any way to interfere with the carrying-on of the partnership business. The suggestion that the Commissioner of Crown Lands should take the side of one partner and evict the other man from his legal rights is certainly a strange proposal for any sensible men to put forward. Poultry-farms, Bee-farms and Fruit-farms. Under this heading the Inquiry Board says: "The Board's inquiries have brought it to the conclusion that advances for the purpose of poultry-farming are a very unreliable investment. To a less extent the same applies to money advanced on bee and fruit farms." First in regard to bee-farms : The number of men who have taken up land to specially go in for bee-farming could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and it was only in very special cases, and then only to men who appeared to have the necessary knowledge and experience, that advances were made for this purpose. I think in only one case has the Department suffered any serious loss with bee-farms, and here it was not so much that bee-farming was an unprofitable business as that the man himself was unsuitable.