MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



81 



23 September, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES DONALDSON. 



[Continued. 



only taking your limitation. Even for next year, 

 you cannot tell us what the men engaged in the 

 industry want or think ought to bo done? What we 

 were asked as a Union to do was, to get the figures 

 in order that you should make your calculations and 

 recommendations. That is the fixed idea of the 

 Farmers' Union. 



11.442. I have given you every opportunity. 



11.443. Chairman: May I ask a question? I 

 do not wish you to depart from instructions which 

 you have received from the Farmers' Union; but 

 assume that the Government desired you to maintain 

 in cereal or arable culture the same acreage as you 

 had in 1918, what guarantee of prices would you 

 require? If you are not instructed to answer, then 

 your answer to me is exactly what you have given 

 to Mr. Cautley? You put the question rather more, 

 clearly, if I may say so. There are certain factors 

 which work against giving an offhand answer with 

 regard to that. For instance, some landlords are 

 raising their rents. Some have raised them very 

 much more than others. Then with regard to the 

 hours of labour, we consider, but we are not quite 

 sure, that those are also fixed. We would require 

 to take all those things into consideration with 

 regard to that; but, as I said before, we thought this 

 Commission was sitting to frame an opinion based 

 on the cos^B of last year and possibly the results of 

 last year, and set that figure before the Prime 

 Minister which would satisfy the farmers next year. 

 I cannot put it clearer than that. 



11,444. Mr. Cutitlcy: Do you think that that is 

 of any assistance to the Commission? I think it is. 

 If those figures are of no assistance, why ask for 

 them? 



11,445..! mean the views? If my views are of 

 no assistance, I am sorry. 



Chairman: I think ho has answered the question 

 as far as he will answer it. 



11.446. Mr. Cautley: In answer to one of the 

 Commissioners, you said that you did not want to 

 go back to the 'eighties or the 'nineties: is that the 

 vii-w of the farmers? We are afraid of that. We 

 are afraid that what has been, may be. 



11.447. Then the answer is you do not want to go 

 back to that? No one would, having experienced it. 



11.448. I understood you to say that at that time 

 the agricultural labourers' wages were driven down 

 to a point altogether too low? In my opinion, yes. 



11.449. Would you agree with me that they went 

 down to a point where it Mas impossible for them 

 really to maintain life in the way of ordinary com- 

 forts? I shall agree with you so far as to say they 

 were underfed, underclothed, and very often under- 

 housed. 



11.450. Was that due to the fact that the prices of 

 the commodities which they were engaged in pro- 

 ducing were fixed from outside? Largely. 



11,461. Was there any other circumstance at all? 

 You have always to take into consideration the 

 effect of bad seasons ; but the bad seasons would not 

 account for it all. 



11.452. There were no more bad seasons in the 

 'eighties or 'nineties than previously. I should have 



ht the 'seventies were the worst? Yes, 1879; 



ivns a bad year, and we never got worse than 

 1894, when we sold wheat at 15s. and 16s. a quarter. 

 That was due to price. 



11.453. And the price of wheat was not fixed by 

 the Knglish production at all? No; it was fixed by 

 other countries. Chicago and Odessa, as I said before. 



1 !.!.""> 1. Wo may tako it generally the price of wheat 

 is fixed in Chicago? It has been. 



11.1".", It really rnmes to this, that you do agree 

 with me, do you not, th.it wages were driven down 

 to that terribly low level by reason of the fact that 

 the prices of the articles which the men and farmers 

 were engaged in producing were fixed outside? Yes, 

 and like any other manufacturer in the same position, 

 the farmer turned to other sources. He gave up his 

 arable cultivation. 



Il,4fl6. And unless that state of affairs can be pre- 

 vented from occurring again, the same thing is likely 

 to happen, w it not? I do not think you are going to 

 be able to prevent the price being fixed outside, but 

 you could, perhaps, give a guarantee. 



~- J6831 



11.457. Cannot you answer my question? Supposing 

 the same sort of things were to occur again, that aU 

 the prices of the commodities which the men and the 

 farmer were producing were to be fixed outside, is 

 not the same result likely to happen again, that 

 wages would be driven down? Yes, given the eame 

 conditions. 



11.458. Then what is the meaning of what you say 

 in paragraph 7: " But if we visualise a time when 

 present prices no longer obtain, when the market 

 for all agricultural commodities has suffered a con- 

 siderable decline, there are, nevertheless, no grounds 

 for assuming that farming cannot continue remuner- 

 ative, both to the farmer and to the worker "? Will 

 you go a little further? 



11.459. No, if you please, I will stay where I am. 

 You have just told me that if the conditions went 

 back to free competition from abroad, as they were 

 in the past, the same results were likely to happen? 

 I agree. 



11.460. I agree with that, too; that is my own 

 view. But you here state that there is no ground 

 for assuming that farming cannot continue remunera- 

 tive we will leave out the farmer to the worker. 

 Are the two statements consistent? Quite consistent, 

 because we have altered our methods entirely. We 

 were altering our methods, and we are going to alter 

 them still more. 



11.461. Then, is it your view that the wages of the 

 worker can be kept up by alteration of farming 

 methods? Undoubtedly, because we should be em- 

 ploying fewer. 



11.462. Then you mean that the remuneration to 

 the workers could only be kept remunerative to the 

 worker by dismissing a large percentage of them? 

 The statement says so. 



11.463. That is what you mean by that? The state- 

 ment says BO. 



11.464. Would you agree with me that to keep men 

 employed on the farms and to keep them at 

 remunerative wages, they must have the principle of 

 the minimum wage? Either the principle of the 

 minimum wage, or perhaps what they get by collective 

 bargaining through their unions. 



11.465. Has collective bargaining through the 

 unions* ever been of any service to the agricultural 

 labourer in the past? It has not had much trial yet, 

 but I should say in the future it would have. 



11.466. What more reason have you to assume that 

 that would maintain the wages of the agricultural 

 labourer in the future rather than it has done in the 

 past? I think you may take all trades unionism and 

 say that it has been a benefit to the worker. 



11.467. I am not questioning that, and that was 

 not the question I put to you. We have got the 

 fact that the agricultural wages were driven down 

 by foreign competition to a point almost im- 

 possible to support life, and certainly impossible to 

 support life in reasonable conditions. Is not the 

 minimum wage the only means of preventing that, 

 assuming that you have this free competition from 

 abroad for agricultural produce? I should not say it 

 was the only means, because if you make it worth 

 their while with the collective bargaining that 

 would take place through the Unions, and with the 

 pressure put upon the farmer by the Unions, I 

 should say he would be in a position to do so. 



11.468. Then do you really mean this, turning to 

 the bottom of paragraph 11 : " The repeal of the 

 Corn Production Act and a return to the unrestricted 

 play of the law of supply and demand, would not, 

 taking the long view, do injury to the farmer nor 

 to the workers as individuals"? To those who 

 adapted themselves to the circumstances I think no. 

 It goes on further to say so. 



11.469. Is this the view of the 86,000 farmers whom 

 you represent ; that you wish to have the Corn Pro- 

 duction Act repealed and go back to the law of supply 

 and demand in dealing with labour? We do not say 

 we wish the Corn Production Act repealed ; but 

 we say if the Corn Production Act is repealed and a 

 return to the unrestricted play of the law of supply 

 and demand were to take place, then an alter- 

 native might happen. We put the alternative 

 before you. 



