\,,KI.-I i.n I;K. 



. 1919.] 



MH. FALCONER L. WALLACE. 



/ .,.,,/ 



to<-k hii-iinem. If I were in general fanning. I 

 would itmsider ni\ business from :iml 



1 (I > iit s.i% I would In- prepared to u'" on funning 

 without MHIH- i;iinrniii< i- I do tint think I would IP- I 

 tui^hi be content with a very small return. I might 

 hold on just a bit longer to see how things wont ; but 

 I ottld run a (grave risk nil the time- <. large 



part of 111% <-ii|iitnl. liocause when prices go down my 

 capital would sink 



8890. Farming is not your only business, it is? No, 

 I am not dafMMMrt on my farming profits 



899*. In your other business, are not conditions 

 ftomcwhat uncertain at the piesent moment - 

 but th.-n we have not tile i-icrease in costs, mind %oti. 



8898. Are you sure of that: Th' 1 costs are merely 

 temporary ; the same thing that makes prices high 

 makes our costs high. When prices go down, our 

 costs will go down too. The costs in my other business 

 have been those of freight and things like that. They 

 work together : whereas in farming they do not. 



8999. The prices in farming also depend on freights 

 and other things like that, do not they!- Yes, partly : 

 but all these new countries will produce, and you will 

 have more foreign competition against home grown 

 stuff after the war than before. I admit before the 

 war the price of produce was :it a very low, level 

 all over the world, and 1 say it will not go down 

 to the 1914 level ; but nobody can form an opinion 

 worth twopence at the present time. 



9000. May I suggest to you that your position is 

 this: that your costs in agriculture have inci> 



in much the same ratio as they have increased in other 

 businesses, but that they are not likely to fall in the 

 same ratio in farming as they are likely to fall in 

 other industries? I do not think wages are likely to 

 fall; but I think, for instance, the cost of cake 'and 

 implements and things of that sort are likely to fall. 



9001. The one thing you really fear is, th'at wages 

 are not likely to fall? I do not fear it. I do not 

 want wages to go down ; I merely want to be kept in 

 the position to pay them. The last thing I want 

 is for wages to go down. 



9002-3. I quite believe that. I uant you to consider 

 this rather carefully. You agree that wages ought 

 not to go down. Do you not think it possible that 

 if you had some experience of working with a smaller 

 supply of labour, with total labour costs not rising 

 in the same proportion as rates of wages, and some 

 experience in the use of new machinery and general 

 methods of economising labour, farmers are going to 

 lienefit by that experience and still keep their total 

 labour costs in a lower proportion than rates of 

 wages- |i.. I -ummarizo your question "orrectly when 

 1 say I understand you 'to mean, that will not the 

 introduction of new machinery and improved methods 

 counteract the Irgher costs of wages? Is th: t what 

 you mean? 



9004. Yes, partly- I think it will partly counteract 

 it; but how far it is mere guess work to say. 1 

 certainly think a farmer will be able to cheapen his 

 i nsts of production by improved methods and more 

 modern machinery. 1 think there is hardly any limit 

 to the improvement that can lie obtained by improved 

 methods: but how far he will be able thereby to 

 counteract the higher costs due to wages. 1 do not 

 know. It is mere guess work to say. 



5 That brings me to my last question. You 



i tin- last paragraph of your Interim Report. 



vniir general opinion that farmers you have 



I from whom you obtained these acc-nint-. were 



Letter farmers than the average farmers even in their 



on n district? Yen, certainly. 



9000. Would you tell UH in what particulars they 

 l>etter farmers:- According to my North Country 

 Scotch notions they farm lietter: (hey use far more 

 artificial manures, they went in larg'elv for the use 

 fif baiiic slag and wild white clo\ . i I .-a me across 

 farms of. I will not commit myself to how many 

 but where a very large proportion of the farm had 

 been v-ry poor, rushy, bqgjfv sort of grass, and had 

 Wn turned into first elans 'grazing simply by basic- 

 slug and wild white clover. The result 'was thai. 

 although the farmer did not pay any more rent for 

 hud be. I, al.l, . to m nV P a fine 'profit out of it 

 owing to his own improvements. That is the kind 



of way which 1 could enlarge U|>on. by which I mean 

 they are better farmers than the avrnge. 



!HKi7. The use of manures is one way. Without 

 going into so much length, could vou part i< -nlai ise 

 one or two othi-rjsr I nought their farms wen- 

 cleaner and more up i i aimed 

 When you go about a farm, you get an impression 

 of a well farmed farm where it looks as though the 

 man had made the ii|-.st of his land. The general im- 

 pression was that they certainly used more farm 



manure. 



9008. To put it quite briefly, from the human point 

 of view they were men who were rather more intelli- 

 gent than the average, and with keener hiuiness 



m'.s- Ye--, that is about what it \\ 



9009. And it is your considered opinion that if %>u 

 could extend the knowledge on technical matters, and 

 de%elop rather kroner business instinct among the 

 farmers, at the same time providing them with a 

 capital, that would have a considerable effect on the 

 prosperity of the industry? A very great effect: 

 more than considerable. 



9010. Mr. Urn: With regard to the guarantee, do 

 you agree that the guarantee is not asked for by the 

 farmer, or is not suggested, with a view to put tin;: 

 profit into the farmer^ pocket? No, I do not agree, 

 farmers, at the same time providing them wiih 

 view of putting profit into his pocket not more profit 

 than he is making now. mind you ; but more profit 

 than he anticipates he will be able to make in the 

 future without it. 



3011. Why? Because prices will go down, and costs 

 will not go down in the same proportion. 



fHH2. Hut my interpretation of the intention of 

 the guarantee is. not that it is put on for the benefit 

 of the farmer, but that it is put on in response 

 to a national need to have more cereals grown and to 

 have the land under the plough ; and that if you 

 insist on the farmer putting the land under the 

 plough, you must in common justice, if you gi%'c a 

 L'uaranteed minimum wage and control him in other 

 directions, say to him : " We insist that you grow 

 these cereals : but %ve recognise it is only just that 

 we should giv<* you some sort of guarantee against 

 a heavy loss."?- I quite agree with you. If the 

 country wishes to ensure its food supply, it has to 

 pay n premium ; and it is not fair to expect or ask 

 the farmer to his own disadvantage to ensure the 

 country's food supply by farming his land not to his 

 own best advantage, unless you .recompense him for 

 doing so. That is perfectly fair. 



9013. It is not from the farmer's point of view 

 primarily that this guaranto ed. hut from 



the point of view of the National need ef having food 

 produced in the country. Would you go further. 

 and agree that tho farmer would be just as "wojl 

 pleased to have no guarantee if he were given a free 

 hand to lay down his land to grass again? As a 

 tanner I would not. and I think a lot of fai 

 would not be at all contented to have no guarantee 

 and he allowed to lay down their land to grass. 



0014. If they would not be content with that. 

 would not they IK> content to risk the market I 

 do not think that would im-ct the views of a good 

 many of them. It would not meet mine. My point 

 is, that so long as you have cv*-ts oomptiUorfly im- 

 posed upon you, it is the duty of tin- country that 

 imposes those. cost upon vou to help you to meet 

 them. That is my point, t do not mean merely with 

 d t<> I he ciuestjcin of laying down \.uir lam! to 

 or not. T mean farm prices in general. 



!M)ir,. Hut it is a National qtuwtion? It is a, 



rial qntttion : and I think it is t 

 tin- Vat ion. 



!Ki|t;. It is not meiely a sectional um ., D No it 

 is not a sectional question at all. h \ lio'nal 



question, bi-caii.se it is a National industry which 

 cffcet.s the well-being of a very large proportion of 

 (hi- nrorking d well as of the more well In 



do. 



9017. You agree i- Me that the- land should 



be kept in cult Ivation ' J I do. but not 

 under corn. I think tlr- country is naturally a stock 

 raising country, and I think it is nlin.^t certain it 

 will revert To that (ositioti. Hut vou must have some 

 sort of guarantee all the same, because you have to 



