44 



ROTAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



n 



LIU 



MR. H. ARMOUR and MR. Q. O. MKRCBR. 



[Continufd. 



io.l.'J. Ibejr form part of your casual labour. 

 They are all casual. 



lu.lN. Ihu increated cost ol 1113 is an increased 

 00*1 in your Mutual labour;-- It is an increased . 

 labour, including casual labour. 



lo,i... It \uu have not increased the iiuml> 

 ><>ur worker*, and allowed the 10 pur cent, increase 

 to tho rugular workers, this increase must be due to 

 the casual labourers r It is partly duu to them. 



10,170. What increase is due to the regular workers!' 



I hare not worked that out. 



10.177. Is it included in the increase of wage* given 

 at the May timer 1 Yes. 



10.178. Uut you hare already included that up 

 above. You have allowed 143 for the increases 

 affecting 191910 per cent. 1 understood you to say 

 in reply to my question that that allowed for the 

 increase of 3s. to the ploughman and 3s. to the women 

 workers that is to say, those regularly employed :-- 



10.179. You then allow 143 for the shorter day. 

 You said in reply to my question that you had no 

 increase in yo-ir regular staff. That is, therefore, 

 an increase in respect of the casual workers P They 

 hare got the allowance too. 



10.180. So that the 143 is an increase in respect 

 of the casual workers P Yes, together with the main 

 workers. 



10.181. I waut to get this clear. If it includes the 

 increase to the regular workers, how can you put in 

 two items, one to cover the increase on the regular 

 workers and another item to cover the effect of the 

 shorter day? I think I am entitled to do that. If 

 you give a shorter day it costs you so much more 

 to do the work ; you get so much less work in the day. 



10,162. If it costs you more to do it, I ask you 

 to turn again t> your figures. You state that the 

 total amount of wages paid on your farm in 1913 was 

 874? Yes. 



. You have already stated that there was a 

 shortening of the working week sometime during that 

 period because of the Saturday half-holiday beinjr 

 given? Yes. 



10,184. In spite of that fact, with an increase in 

 the rate of wages paid of over 100 per cent., the 

 actual increase of wages paid is only 63 per cent. 

 In the fact of that how can you say the decrease in 

 the number of hours worked increased the actual 

 amount of wages paid P I do not quite follow your 

 question yet. 



l<>.lH/>. I will put it again. In 1913 the actual 

 ages paid were 874? Yes. 



10.186. In 1918 they were 1,431? Yes. 



10.187. That in an increase of the actual amount of 

 money paid in wages of 63 per cent. P Quite. 



. The increase in the rate of wages during 

 Ifcat time was over 100 per cent., so that the in- 

 creased rate of wages paid does not show itself in 

 actual amount of wages paid it does not show 

 th. same percentage P-No, but it shows it in less 

 rk, because, at I explained to you in the case of 

 hay and the straw, instead of that having to be 

 * away to Edinburgh 10 mil,* it was sold to 

 Government and delivered to the railway station. 

 the working of the farm wry 



for '"ffar'-nce of 37 

 . account for a considerable 



1". 190. Doe. it account for 37 per cent.?-I cannot 



" -" - ' 



I '.II. not 







it i on- tiling that mad, on<. 

 Vrmoiir's \,,i v i..,i,|ih. 

 J mit of UN MI 1918 were working 

 "H.v I wa. vory ro 



' !' l:tv | have 

 .. m.-n -orkmu -n my frin th.u, | | l:l( , )aKt 



5ttstttri:i2ft 1 fti<sjr2: 



the labour is being kept forward; but without them 1 

 am afraid it would have been very much behind. 

 That is why we did not challenge those figures. 



10,193. Coming further down in your figures, you 

 MOW an increase in rent and rates between 1913 and 

 1919 of 8s. lid. per acre? (J/r. Armour) : 1 may ex- 

 plain that in this wu.y : if the present cost of rates and 

 taxes and also the upkeep of buildings is to be borne 

 by landlords, I put that in for the purpose of showing 

 that in fixing a price it would require to be taken 

 into consideration. That is the only reason 1 have for 

 putting the increased rent there.. 



10.193. Does that answer also apply to the figure for 

 1918, which shows an increase of 8s. 5d. per acre over 

 1913?-Yes, that is right. 



10.194. So that the figure of 2 2s. 6d. is not an 

 actual figure? It is not. 



10.195. Are there any other of your figures in this 

 -statement which are not actual figures taken from 

 your books? No there is nothing else. 



10.196. All the other figures are actual figures? 



Yes, except the depreciation of horses; that is an 

 estimate of the effect of the shorter day as regards the 

 horses. 



10.197. At what rate do you take your interest on 

 capital? 5 per cent. 



10.198. Reckoning your capital as 10 to the acre? 

 Quite. 



10.199. Your depreciation on implements is also an 

 estimate? Yes. 



10.200. At what rate is that taken? It is taken 

 from my experience of the cost of upkeep. 



10.201. On what basis do you allocate your horse 

 labour to these fields in the same way by taking the 

 total cost of the keep of the horses and dividing it by 

 the number of acres? Yes. I have made no attempt 

 to allocate the particular field the horse is working in 

 I have taken the whole working of the farm as a farm 



le estimated cost of the keep of the horses. 



10.202. You make an estimate of the total cost of 

 the keep of the horses? Yes, I estimate that they con- 



ume 15 Ibs. of hay per day, that is 105 Ibs. per week, 

 i / a Ow( " that amo "nte to 7s. 6d. Then I allow 



Ibs. of oats a day, that is 1 cwt. per week at 50s 

 which amounts to 16s. 8d. That gives you a total of 



-l-i. I'll. 



10.203. Coming back to your evidonce-in-chief, 

 submit that to cover these costs as given by you 



here, which include depreciation, interest on capital 

 and management, a price of 68s. per quarter for wheat 

 13 required? Yes. 



10.204. Is it your view that the Government are to 

 guarantee this price for the year 1919 on the basis of 

 the Corn Production Act? That is so. 



10.205. And that in the event of the market price 

 being higher than that, the farmer will be left free to 

 take what profit he can get? No, I think that it 



in T ? ver a COTtairl P">fit to the farmer. 



10.206. I do not quite follow you? These are the 

 bare costs, you see; it does not include profit to the 



- t J. 11 ' and * think he ou S ht to have some profit 



20, . May I suggest to you that the method which 



you have taken to arrive at your costs does not enable 



us to say whether there is any element of profit in -t 



>r not, and before we can take this method of arriving 



at costs we should have to have a complete balance 



slieet of the farm showing what the farmer is making 



on the whole rotation. Would it not be possible that 



the case of a guarantee of this price you might be 



making your profit on other crops? That might be 



te possible indeed, it is a general rule. A farmer 



9 sometimes, but ho makes it up on another. Every 



the yield is not the same; you may have more 



have f!sB POr BCre " e year> and another y ear - vou m; r 



10,208 So that this method of arriving at the costs 

 may Includo pro fi t p It mj ht include g fifc 2,^5 



nave an increased yield. 



' "'"" View * that this P rioc is 



