BOYAL COMMISSION ON AOB1CULTUUE. 



1919.] 



MR. R. COL ION Fox. 



[Continued. 



7350. Can yon tell a* the cost of once ploughing an 

 acre? I met the farmers on Thursday at York; and, 

 to toll you the truth they laid I had got it too low. 



7151. You have not told us what you have got it at? 

 Yea, it is in the figures. 



7259. I hare not seen your estimate, so I will not 

 go into that. 



7353. Mr. Dallas : You said in reply to Mr. Duncan 

 that you had no scheme for thin sliding scale of wages. 

 Have you got no idea that the wages would stick at 

 any particular level? Do you want them to slide 

 down to nothing, or do you want to draw a line; 

 and if you want to draw a line, where would you draw 

 the line aa to what the rock bottom minimum wage 

 would be? I should say it would cause us lees trouble 

 if wage* remained where they were, and you arrived 

 at the guarantee now; and whatever guarantee you 

 fixed now on present wages, let it remain. 



7354. But that is a contradiction of the evidence 

 you have submitted to the Commission. Your evi- 

 dence to the Commission is that your idea is not what 

 you have just said, that wages should remain station- 

 ary ; but rather that they should be based on a sliding 

 scale and rise and fall with the prices of agricultural 

 produce? Yes. I said that was impossible, because 

 the price of corn might go down so much that our 

 men's wages might go down to what they were before. 



7355. That is what I want to get at. Have you 

 got any, what I might call living wage in your mind, 

 that wages should not go below? 3 f things would 

 remain as they are, it would be far the beet to 

 continue this present wage. 



7356. That is not the point; but 1 will leave it? 

 Unless the other scheme was impossible. 



7257. You mean to say you have submitted a scheme, 

 which after consideration you think is impossible? 

 It did not strike me so. The world prices would drop 

 so much that our men could not live. 



7358. Why did not you put this into operation 

 yourself? In 1916-17, prices were very high just 

 before the Corn Production Act was put into opera 

 tion. 1 think they were about 80s.? Yes. 



7359. The general costs of farming then were very 

 much lower than they are now? Yes. 



7360. Why did not you give your labourers the 

 advantage of the magnificent sliding ncale? Per- 

 sonally I was in a very poor position. I changed 

 my farm in 1915; and as you will see from my 

 balance sheet, unfortunately I lost money, and it did 

 not occur to me that it should be done. 



7261. And now since you put it forward, you say 

 it should not be done? Now, I say the men can have 

 3 a week for all I care if corn prices allow it. 



. You said in answer to a question from Mr. 

 C'autlc-y that the guaranteed price should be 90s. You 

 thought that was probably too much for yourself for 

 your own district, but you thought for the heavy 

 days of Essex it would be the right price? Yes. 



Z63. Would you be surprised to know that the 



leading representative of the farming community in 



Essex has been here, and stated that 60s. would be 



1 U 'J* enough? It depends on his operations per acre. 



I am telling you that he has been here and 



that 60s. would be quite a sufficient guarantee 



rthat u the obioct of your suggesting 90s. when it i 



'. a figure that you think suitable for your own 



ntnct, but you put it forward for another district, 



thi- people from that district think it is 60 per 



too much? Because if I may quote you these 



fijrurm, for growing a wheat crop in 1920 on fallow, it 



conn* to 117 nn . 



ill l,.;,v.. it like that; but I want you to 



think ovr what I have told you. Do you think that 



ibe Government Mihsidues funning nnd you have 



t would bt the taxpayer who would' have to 



the other industries would be content to 



help to pay out of their pockets to keep agriculture 



prosperous condition, without also asking the 



irnont to soMdiM ihi-in UN n-,-11:- No / ,! (. 



7368. Then if the Government subsidised them ax 



t means that the farmer,, would have to ) 



K some of their money to help to keep lh-m 



going? Yea. 



- that we are in a kind ,,f < irrle that th- 

 farmer get. inoru-y from the other Mlown to keen 

 l.im go,n|, and he pays it out to keep the other men 



7968. Mr. Aihby: You said in answer to Mr. 

 Cautley that your average yield of wheat was 4 to 

 4J quarters? Yes. 



7'2W. Could you give, us the normal average yield 

 of barley for your district abjo? I should place it at 

 4 quarters. 



7370. And your oats? 5 quarters. 



7371. Could you tell me what is the proportion 

 respectively of profit and of risk in this second 

 column in your table? 1 add 20 per cent. 



7273, You add 30 per cent, to your total cost; but 

 what part of that 30 per cent, do you think repre- 

 senta risk? You see I have taken rent and ruteu 

 at 1 9s. Ud. an acre. That is included in my 

 schedule of costs*. 



7373. Will you tell me what are the risks? Failure 

 of crops. 



7374. I take it on thia land of yours your chief 

 risk is drought? Yes; drought is the main risk. 



7275. And this summer has been pretty bad for 

 you? Very bad. 



7276. So that the yields you quote in this third 

 column for this year, are pretty nearly your bottom 

 yields? Yea, 



7277. So that as a matter of fact you make two 

 allowances in this table for risk. Yon take your 

 yields at your bottom point, and then you add 20 

 per cent, to your costs for risks. Do you think that 

 is fair? No; the yields that I quote are different for 

 two lots of barley : one at 3 and one at 4. 



7278. But may I say that I have worked out your 

 average yeild over the whole acreage; and for wheat 

 it i.s 2oJ bushels; for oats it is 29J bushels, and for 

 barley it is 2CJ bushels. So that in each case the 

 yield you state is considerably below your normal or 

 average for your district, and to that extent you 

 have allowed for the risk in this year ; then you add 

 something for risk. Do you think that is quite a 

 fair proceeding? I see. 



7279. So that if we ruled out the element of risk 

 and said that these figures of 2 3s., 2 8s., etc., 

 cover profit and do not really cover risk, because 

 you have allowed for risk in this year, you do, except 

 in the case of one piece of oats and one piece of 

 barley, show small profits rather than loss? I waa 

 taking the actual yield,, you see. 



7280. I know you were taking the actual yield ; 

 but you are allowing something for risk which is not 

 really run this year, because you have taken the 

 vield, -as you admit yourself, at the bottom point? 

 lliivi- I taken the actual interest on my money? Is 

 that what you mean? 



7281. If these costs are actual costs and then you 

 add 20 per cent., which varies from 2 to 2 8s. an 

 acre with these yields which you admit are the bottom 

 yields, that 2 is what you think ought to be profit 

 which is not quite reached in all cases? I see what 

 you mean. I have stated definitely the yield I ex- 

 pect, and I ought only to have taken the farmer's 

 supervision and the interest on his money in this case? 



7282. In this particular case. I understood you to 

 say, in answer to Mr. Cautley, that these figures in 

 tin' first column are actual cost records? Yes. 



7283. Do you obtain them by recording periodically 

 the number of horse days and the number of men days 

 on each crop ? Yes ; of course it is based on my esti- 

 mate of ploughing per acre. 



7284. There are one or two points in your balance 

 sheet. In the statement of profit and loss account at 

 the 1st April, 1916, your valuation is 1,108, roughly ; 

 but I understand that this does not include stocks of 

 hay, corn, cake and manure? No manure that is made 

 in the yard, do you mean? 



7285. Look at your own note. There is a consider- 

 able increase in the valuation between the beginning 

 iind the end of 1916. Could you tell us to what that 

 is due? It was partly due to the amount of fertilisers 

 that I had in hand ; and it was due also, I think, to my 

 having 25 quarters of oats. 



7286. It is partly due to increase in stock and 

 manures? It in partly due to increase in stock and 

 immures. 



7287. And also partly due to increase in live-stock? 

 Yes. 



See Appendix No. II. 



