27 August, 1919.] 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 

 MK. THOMAS 0. GOODWIN. 



00 



[Continued. 



6711. Have you any organisation to-day for the 

 purpose of buying cakes, manures, and so on? Yes, 

 we have the Farmers' Association. We have what is 

 called the Cheshire, Shropshire and North Wales 

 Farmers' Association, which does a very big work in 

 that way. I am one of the directors of that Asso- 

 ciation. 



6712. Then you find you can get your material- 

 more cheaply through the Association than through 

 dealers: 1 Yes, and then we have the advantage of 

 getting our stuff at the lowest market price, and 

 being sure of the quality. We analyse free of cost, 

 and all that kind of thing, and if it is not up to 

 standard, of course returns are made. That is the 

 way in which it is worked for the benefit of the 

 farmers. 



6713. Do the farmers take to it pretty kindly? 

 Are most of the farmers members? Yes, we have a 

 very large membership. I could not give you the 

 number now. but pre-war our turnover wa- !j2o().(XX> 

 a year in our own concern. 



6714. One has heard hints in some places that there 

 is a difficulty in getting members, because many of 

 the farmers are in debt to private traders and cannot 

 very well leave them. You have not any such 

 experience? No; and at every directors' meeting 

 we have had for a long time now, I have not been 

 at one but wliat we have had a fresh application for 

 shares. 



6715. You have been asked a good many questions 

 about the sale of farms, and farmers buying their 

 own land. I think you have given your opinion 

 that farmers do not buy their farms because they 

 want to, but because otherwise they would be faced 

 by being thrown out of occupation ? Yes. 



6716. And as a rule, I suppose, they do not know 

 :iny other business? That is so. 



6fl7. And they have to work at this? Yes. 



6718. So that if they do not buy their farms, they 

 are faced possibly with the workhouse? Yes. 



6719. It is really a matter of necessity a/id not a 

 matter of choice? Yes. 



6720. On the question of guaranteed prices for 

 corn, I think the only iigure which has been put 

 before you was for four years. Do you think that is 

 long enough? No, I do not. 



IJ721. ])o not you think the tanner- want right or 

 ten years to give them confidence? Yes, it would be 

 very niurh better. I stated not loss than live years. 



6722. You do not think five is enough? No. 



C>723. It wants eight or ten years, you think? 

 Ye-. 1 quite agree. 



6724. Dr. Dniii/liix: Yen -aid ti ti-. I think, if I 

 quite understood you, that if there were no 

 guarantees, it would be your intention and policy to 

 reduce your production of cereals? That would be 

 the natural consequence. 



6725. And that would be general? Yes. 



6726. In your district, would that mean a consider- 

 able reduction of employment? Not necessarily so. 



6727. Why not? On the large dairy farms "they 

 need the labour for the other work. It would mean 

 a reduction in the machinery that would be needed 

 for dealing with this work. 



6728. Do you conduct your dairy farms partly by 

 arable production? Do you use a good deal of your 

 own material? Yes; we use a good deal of our own 

 oats and roots for the winter milk production. 



0720. I think, in aiiMvor to \Tr Thoin-i- Hondoi--.ni. 

 T understood you to -av that you propose a guarante 

 not on the acreage cultivated, but on the actual crop 

 produced ? Yes. 



6730. Do you not think that would be very difficult 

 to administer? You recognise that that would be a 

 departure from the method of the Corn Production 

 Art:-- Yev it may be difficult to administer; but I 

 think it would be fairer. 



6731. Let us take that point. If you give a 

 guarantee necording to the amount of production, 

 would not that give a larger advantage to the man 

 whoe Land produces, say, 10 quarters of oats to the 

 arro. than to the mnn whose land produces four 

 quarters?- -If he could produce 10 quarters to the 

 a<-ro. he must have been patting in a great deal more 

 energy. 



6732. He may have had better landP Yes, he may 

 have had better land. There might be a disadvantage 

 to the nian with poor laud in that respect. 



6733. But docs the man with good land need any 

 encouragement ? In some cases he does. 



6734. Does not he generally need Ies9 encouragement 

 than the man with poor land ? The man with poor 

 land certainly needs more encouragement than the 

 other. 



6735. Take it from the point of view of production. 

 If you want to increase production, to whom would 

 you need to offer the inducement to the man with 

 good and suitable laud, or the man with the less 

 suitable land? The greater encouragement, cer- 

 tainly, to the n-:ui with poor land. 



6736. And your suggestion would have the opposite 

 effect? My suggestion of paying on the crop? 



6737. Yes? It might to some extent. 



6738. Do not you think that is rather a serious 

 objection? It might be. 



6739. Do not you think it would entail a consider- 

 able waste of public money, if the guarantee ever did 

 fall to be paid, that it should be paid to the nun 

 who did not neei it at all rather than to the man 

 who needed it most? You see it is very difficult >o 

 answer that question, because even the man with the 

 poor laud by good farming can bring his yield of 

 crops up. 



6740. When laud fell out of cultivation on accou it 

 of the fall in prices, was it chiefly the less -productive 

 land, or the more productive land ? The less pro- 

 ductive land. 



6741. A n d is not that land the problem you have 

 to deal with? Yes; that is, to a large extent, thi 

 difficulty. 



6742. Do not you think that points rather to a 

 guarantee by acreage cultivated, subject to security 

 being taken that the land is well-cultivated, than a 

 guarantee on the total amount produced? Yes; from 

 that point of view it certainly would be better for 

 the man with poor land. 



6743. And you agree also that the purchase of the 

 entire crop, which would be the only method of 

 administering a guarantee on the amount produced, 

 would be a very complicated transaction for the S.tate 

 to enter into? Yes. 



D7II. Have you ever thought how it could be 

 administered? No, I have not thought that out. 



6745. Do not you think it would be rather difficult 

 for this Commission to recommend a method of deal- 

 ing with the subject, without being able to suggest 

 a plan as to how it could be administered? Yes. 



6746. You spoko about the necessity for co-opera- 

 tion, as to which I think there is pretty general 

 agreement, in theory at all events; and you spoke 



particularly of co-operation in the use of machinery. 



What size of farms were you referring to when you 

 spoke of the matter of co-operation in the use of 

 machinery? I want to know what is in your mind? 

 I think it referred chiefly to the buying of the 

 machinery for the farmers. 



6747. There was that point also; and there is no 

 difference between the buying co-operatively of cake, 

 or manures, or anything else. I think it was Mr. 

 Walker who asked the question,, and I think he in- 

 tended to refer to the co-operative use of machinery. 

 Did you understand him so? No, not quite in that 

 way. Of course that would apply more to the smaller 

 farms. 



Mr. Parker : T*he question was put and he answered 

 " yes." 



6748. Dr. Uouglas: Yes; I rather wondered 

 whether he understood the question? It would apply 

 in that way to the smaller farms. 



6749. But only a limited number of implements? - 

 Yes. 



i;7"il). You could not have a number of farms 

 sharing a reaper and hinder, because they would all 

 want it at the same time? Yes. 



6751. May I take it you wish to add to your former 

 answer, that it will only apply to a very limited 

 number of implements? Yes, in the smaller farms; 

 but, of course, we have a very large percentage of 



