MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



23 September, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES DONALDSON. 



[Continued. 



this third year of the war call which brought in a 

 lot of men who would not have been in otherwise, 

 and that meant that the men in the rural districts 

 had been left till the last, and you did then get a 

 larger proportion of A 1 men in proportion to the 

 other:' Yes; but a very large proportion went the 

 first year of the war. A very large proportion of my 

 own men went. 



11.749. Yes; but there was a very large proportion 

 of men held back for agricultural purposes which 

 you could not hold back in regard to other indus- 

 tries:' They were not all A 1 men. 



11.750. But that is a fact? Yes. 



11.751. I do not know whether 1 understood you 

 aright as saying that you came here to look after 

 the interests of the farmers!' As a whole, yes. 



11.752. When you gave that answer, what seemed 

 to strike me was that being here in their interests, 

 they told you you were not to say whether the 

 guarantee was to be 3, 5, 10 years, or whatever it 

 was to be. If anybody asked you about the guarantee, 

 you were not to say? No, I was not told that. 1 

 think I can tell you this, that I have said that my 

 own opinion of the short view is 8 to 10 years. That 

 stands recorded. 



11.753. I was now getting back to where we started 

 out, that you had instructions when you came here as 

 to how far you were to go? I had instructions not 

 to speak on policy, I quite agree to that. 



11.754. Mr. Parker: I have read your statement 

 very carefully; and I gather that the difficulty of 

 assessing the probable course of the market is what 

 is interesting at the present time the 80,000 members 

 of your Farmers' Union? Yes; I think I can agree 

 to that. 



11.755. I suppose, having regard to the present 

 position of the world, they are not afraid of any 

 immediate break in prices, I mean within the next 

 couple of years? I should not say a couple of years; 

 but for next year I should say we would not be 

 afraid. 



11.756. Is the market you have in mind the market 

 for cereals and meat which is controlled by world 

 prices, or has the word "market" ;i wider application 

 in your mind, covering the cost of labour in the 

 future and the cost of farming requisites, such as 

 seeds, feeding stuffs, and manures!' There are cer- 

 tain requisites in regard to farming which we expect 

 will go down ; but I must reiterate this point again, 

 that we do not expect labour to go down to pre-war 

 conditions. We do think and we do say it is 

 possible, nay, more than probable, that. by-*nd-bye, 

 the price of products will go down to pre-war prices. 

 That is the fear that animates the farmer at the 

 present time. 



11.757. Then there are three things the fall in 

 the price of cereals owing to world prices, the con- 

 tinuance of the present labour cost or a possible 

 rise, and the chance of farm requisites not falling 

 in price correspondingly with the value of cereals 

 and meat: that is the fear? Yes, that is the fear. 



11.758. In the last paragraph of your statement 

 you say: " On the other hand, it may be that produc- 

 tion and employment in the future depend upon 

 guaranteeing to the farmers certain prices, on the 

 principle of the Corn Production Act, for certain 

 periods, and the actual figures being subject to 

 revision, from time to time, in the light of changing 

 circumstances." You have told us you are not here 

 to speak with regard to the policy of the guarantee. 

 Will that prevent your answering me one or two 

 questions as to if that policy wore adopted, what the 

 naturo of that guarantee should be? Yes, I am 

 afraid it would, because we do not know what the 

 Government are requiring of us. When the Govern- 

 ment tells us what they require with regard to culti- 

 vation, we shall then be able to frame our policy; 

 and I am afraid that would eliminate my answering 

 the. question. 



11.759. I do not think you quite understand what 

 I mean. Could you answer m the question whether 

 fou think it should be a guarantee of fixed prices 

 for a long or h>/rt period, or prices, as you seem 



intemplatc, on a sliding They will come, 



within the four corners of our policy. 



11.760. Yon cannot answer tbose questions to-day t 



No. Any answer I might give you might pre- 

 judice thai/ policy when brought forward. 



11.761. 1 wanted to elicit your opinion on these 

 two points; but you cannot give it? No. 



11.762. If that 16 so, I have only one other question 

 to ask you. You say the National Farmers Union 

 feel that this question of the economic future of 

 agriculture is a matter more for political concern 

 than industrial concern, and you give one or two 

 reasons. .Besides the reasons you have given, is there 

 not the further reason that it is important to pro- 

 duce as much as possible in this country so as to 

 reduce our imports as compared with our exports? 

 I quite agree. 



11.763. I think you rather touched on that before? 

 Yes, I quite agree to that. 



11.764. That is a very strong reason? It is a strong 

 reason. 



11.765. Mr. Bobbins: The Farmers' Union, whom 

 you are representing here to-day, seems to have come 

 in for a good deal of criticism concerning the method 

 it has adopted in presenting its evidence. Is it a 

 fact that the Farmers' Union is conforming strictly 

 to the lines laid down by this Commission? That is 

 so. Nothing struck me more than the idea that we 

 were not conforming to the lines laid down by the 

 Commission. We were asked within a certain time 

 for the costs, and we produced them. 



11.766. You were asked by this Commission first 

 of all, to concentrate on costs? Yes. 



11.767. And then to supply balance sheets? Yea. 



11.768. And you were told, although you were not 

 encouraged to do so, that there might be an oppor- 

 tunity of saying something about policy at the end; 

 but you were distinctly discouraged from saying 

 anything about policy at the start? That is so. 



11.769. So that the Farmers' Lnion has been getting 

 into great disrepute to-day for doing what it has 

 been asked to do? Exactly. 



11.770. Your statement to-day is simply in the 

 nature of an introductory statement? Yes, as to the 

 cost*. 



11.771. With the intention of removing a wrong 

 impression the public have got, that farmers as a 

 class are asking for some favour at the hands of the 

 public? That is right; we wanted to eliminate that 

 idea entirely. 



11.772. You thought it was the duty of the Farmers' 

 Union, although they were precluded by the order 

 of this Commission from saying anything as to what 

 they felt must be the right policy, to take the earliest 

 opportunity of removing what they considered was a 

 wrong impression, and. an impression calculated to 

 do the farming industry very great harm? A very 

 erroneous impression. 



11.773. And the purport of this document on the 

 one hand is to show that farmers, if the Government 

 say they are to do so and so, are perfectly willing 

 to conduct their businesses according to their own 

 ideas as to what is best -without Government guaran- 

 tees or interference? Yes. 



11.774. But, on the other hand, the purport of it 

 is that if the Government ask them to do something 

 which they consider economically unsound from the 

 farmers' point of view as distinct from the general 

 point of view, the farmers are entitled to some 

 guarantee which shall indemnify them against serious 

 loss; and when the time arrives they are quite willing 

 to say what in their opinion the guarantee should be? 

 Yes. 



11.775. But they have been asked for the moment 

 to concentrate on costs? Yes. 



11.776. And they are told there may be some oppor- 

 tunity for them to say something on policy? Yes. 



11.777. So that all this criticism of your inability 

 to say anything about policy to-day, arises through 

 the fault of the Commission, if it is anybody's fault? 

 I think I hinted at that all through. 



11.778. Mr. Smith: I think you said that for next 

 year you considered 80s. would be needed for wheat? 

 In all probability I think that will be about a fair 

 estimate. 



11.779. Would not that give a very substantial pro- 

 fib, not to say an excessive profit, to some farmers? 

 And it might not show anything for others. 



