MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



25 



16 September, 1919.] 



MR. L. X. GOODING. 



[Continued. 



9636. Why did they suggest the farms on this 

 estate ? I cannot say. When I was up here last time 

 I was asked to produce these figures. 



9637. Who asked you:- Sir AVilliam Peat, I 

 believe. 



9638. He certainly did not ask you to produce these 

 depressing accounts? Ho asked mo to produce the 

 accounts of the " A " Estate. 



9639. Have you any reasonable accounts from other 

 farmers in your district which would induce a farmer 

 to take up farming on any farms in your neighbour- 

 hood? I cannot say that I have at the present day. 

 Farmers do not usually keep accounts in such a con- 

 dition that they can be produced. 



!><itO. 1 see in your Summary of Profits in 

 regard to Farm "C" that in 1910 the profit was ?26, 

 and that the Income Tax paid was 6. How was 

 that arrived at? That was the amount of tax on the 

 previous year. 



9641. I suppose the would be the tax on the 

 726? That was paid on the Schedule B assessment 

 of the farm, which is a third of the rent less abate- 

 ments. 



9642. What was the rent? I do not know what the 

 rent was; the Schedule "A." assessment was 250. 



9643. The gentleman who takes that farm has to 

 face a totally different assessment for Income Tax 

 iiow ? Yes. 



9t>44. That will increase his loss? Everybody 

 has to pay increased Income Tax, but if he does not 

 make a profit he will not have to pay it. 



9645. Have you made any allowance for the produce 

 consumed off the farm? Everything the farmer con- 

 sumed is charged at market prices. The houses on 

 these farms are occupied by the working foremen ; 

 there has been nothing credited for them. 



9646. You are quite conscious that this is a terrible 

 state of the farming industry which you have repre- 

 sented to us? It looks very bad; I am quite aware of 

 that. 



!N;47. />/. Diiiujkn: On Farm "A" you return 

 the rent under the payments account as 238, and 

 also down below in your summary you show it as 344. 

 Why do you have these two different figures? The 

 rent down below is Schedule "A" plus the tithe. The 

 tithe is added on to that. That is how we have to 

 return it to the Income Tax authorities. 



9648. So that really it is these two separate figures 

 which make up tho sum of 344? Yes, there may be 

 a little difference in some years. 



Win. It i* only C319 in the year 1903-9? Yes. It 

 is more than that if you take 1910-16; the tithe has 

 been going up every year. 



9650. You have spoken of the high cost and prices 

 as being the !a< toi-, that have made it impossible for 

 these farms to pay. Is it not the fact that your worst 

 years of the ten were at the time of lower prices, and 

 that your results have been rather better during the 

 period of higher prices:' Yes; that is partly duo to 

 the drought in those earlier years, and partly due to 

 realising stock at war prices in the latter part of tho 

 time. 



9651. Of course, tho circumstances of war have 

 affected both sides of your account, have they not? 

 ^ but during part of the time we were short of 

 labour, and we had to manage without. That reduced 

 some of the increased expense, and also in the case of 

 feeding-stuffs, for instance, we could not buy them, 

 ami did not spend the money on them. 



_'. Therefore, the period of higher prices has 

 proved a better period for you in all respects? Yes, 

 during the last few years. 



: Mr. l.'i'i,: With regard to Farm "A," you 

 have taken Schedule " A " assessment. Do you put 

 that down in lieu of rent? Yes, in that account. 



!H;."i 1. You .in- not quite doing yourself justice there, 



are yon, licr-au-e MI Schedule "A" tho cost of upkeep 



i lio tithe? The rent is taken at 



:VH as an average; there is very little dilfereuce; it 

 is just a little bit on the wrong side. 



9655. As a matter of fact, your figures for Farm 

 ' A " are based upon the Schedule " A " assessment 

 as regards the rental, less tithe, and less 12^ per 

 cent, for upkeep? The tithe is included in the 

 account. 



9656. I am alluding to the upkeep? The upkeep 

 is not included. 



9657. Under the heading you would want to include 

 the upkeep which the landlord and occupier would 

 have to pay. As this farm is in hand he would have 

 to do the repairs himself? That is how we return 

 it to the Surveyor of Taxes. I might have left that 

 out and put half Schedule " B," which is 344. 



9658. There is not very much in that, but lower 

 down you charge the rent at 344 and you estimate 

 the average profits at 260, but in arriving at that 

 260 you have already charged yourself with the 

 rent under these two items of Schedule "A," the 

 rent and the tithe. I suggest you are charging two 

 rents. Your profit is 260, but to arrive at that 

 profit you have charged yourself with 319 at the 

 beginning of the period and 321 at the finish. If 

 you take the 319 and add it to the "260 you make 

 the actual profit 579 instead of 260. You cannot 

 charge the rent in the Schedule "A" and the tithe. 

 You charge the whole of the 344. That is my point? 

 Yes, it does look as if it was charged twice. The 

 little table below is to show that if the farm wore 

 let to-day at the rent -assessed in Schedule " B " the 

 farmer would have to pay 344 rent and 500 interest 

 on his capital of 10,000 at 5 ]x?r cent., which 

 would make a total of 844 a year before he got any- 

 thing for himself. 



9659. That is all right; the farmer would have to 

 pay the rent and interest on his capital, but he would 

 not have to pay the Schedule "A" assessment and 

 the tithe? Yes, that is so; I agree that should come 

 out. 



9660. You have either to deduct that from the 344 

 or add it to the profit of 260, which comes to the 

 same thing? Yes. 



9661. So that the actual profit interest is 580? 

 Yes, I agree that should, be altered. 



9662. So that the loss to the farmer is considerably 

 less than these figures show? Yes. 



9663 You said that you pursued a four course 

 rotation on these farms? Principally. 



9664. One year grass, and then wheat after clover? 

 Wheat or oats- first of all roots, and then barley, 

 and then layer and wheat or oats. 



9665. What after the barley ? After the barley will 

 come a layer. 



9666. One year's lay? Yes. 



9(567. Do you think that is the best way to keep the 

 land clean? Yes. 



9668. Have you ever tried wild white clover? No. 



9669. If you did I think you would find that not 

 only would you keep your land clean but you would 

 grow at least double the corn crops, and in addition 

 you can let it lie for two or three years and so 

 save your labour bill? We lay a good deal down 

 to lucerne which we leave for four, five or six years 

 a.s long as it will grow a crop, and then plough it up. 



!><;70. That leaves the land very dirty? Yes, and 

 then we take two crops of corn, clean it and lay it 

 down again. 



9671. Of course, one docs not like to speak of a 

 .strange county, but it seems to me you would do 

 better both from your own and from the national 

 point of view if you were to alter your system of 

 rotation and try to get rid of this frightful loss 

 which seems to me to be the case. I suppose you 

 as manager organise the work and arrange the crop- 

 ping and that sort of thing the foreman only carries 

 out your instructions;' That is right, but. of course 

 1 consult the owner, Mr. " X." Ho is always 

 about the farms every day. He takes a personal 

 interest in it, and I do it with his assistance. 



!)()7'J. No part of the accounts includes any of the 

 expenses of your management ? \o. 



!>f>7:!. Mr. Uri'niuin : I know perfectly well thai; this 

 A " land is MTV poor land indeed. Tho Com- 

 mission hardly realise how light the laud is, do they? 

 I do not think they do. 



