MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



5 August, 1919.] 



SIR DANIEL HALL, K.C.B., F.R.S. 



[Continued. 



108. Was it from that point of view that the 

 principle of the guarantee was inserted in the Corn 

 Production Act? It was. 



109. Yet you have told me that the prices fixed by' 

 that guarantee had no reference to the cost of 

 production? They wore not calculated one with 

 reference to the other ; there was no attempt to 

 balance them off. 



110. Then, so far as the origin-al prices were <;m- 

 cerned, they were mere guesswork? Guesswork in 

 the sense that they were derived from the practice ' 

 i'f the industry at the time. The only thing exist- 

 ing to guide us was what had been the prices at which 

 farming before the war was managing to keep its 

 head above water. We know that farming had l>een 

 reasonably prosperous for five years before the war 

 at a certain scale of prices; we had those two sets of 

 figures before us. 



111. So that assuming that the method of fixing 

 wages is the best that can be designed according to 

 the Corn Production Act, the sole question remain- 

 ing, in your view, is whether the guarantees are 

 sufficient? Yes. 



112. Have you considered at all whether there is 

 any other principle to make good to the employers 

 except by> guarantee? If you mean duties, we will 

 say 



113. I was not thinking of any. I am asking you 

 for information. Have you or the Board of Agricul- 

 ture anything? I think we have reviewed a good 

 many possibilities as to payment to the producers, 

 and we adopted the guarantee as the one that, on 

 the whole, was the soundest ami interfered least with 

 the industry and least with the normal play of the 

 market. 



114. Then I take it that you have no other pro- 

 position to put before us to-day, except the one of 

 guarantee? No. 



115. And. so far as you are concerned, the whole 

 question is whether the guarantee is sufficient? 

 Yes. 



116. Why do yon fix only a guarantee for cereals? 

 For the reason I think I have explained, that it 

 was in cereals that foreign competition is felt. 



117. You mean the price of English cereak mid 

 the cx*t of production had nothing to do with the 

 market price? No, nothing at alL The price was 

 fixed in Chicago. 



118. What I want to know is. how can fixing the 

 prioo of cereals to the grower in England be any 

 assistance to the grazier, for instance, the grass 

 cattle or sheep fanner? We consider that he has 

 pretty well his market to himself. 



110. Is not the beef and mutton market equally 

 control!.-.! by the foreign supplies? Not to anything 

 like the same extent. 



120. But surely? I am not speaking of now, but 

 surely tin- price in normal times is fixed entirely by 

 the foreign imports, is not it? T should not have 

 thought so. Wo had about one-half of the meat 

 trade, and our prices were above the prices of the 

 imported stuff. It is quite true that they were kept 

 down to a certain extent. 



121. How can tho guarantee to the corn grower 

 next door a payment to him assist the grazier, 

 w bo simply has to buy grain and yet has to pay the 

 increased wages? What I would say is this that the 

 grazier is -not necessarily next door; very often the 

 gra/.ier who is producing the beef is also the corn 

 grower. We were not particularly concerned with the 

 pure grass farmer; we wen- not trying by the Corn 

 Production Act to benefit the pure grass farrm r. 



122. Then you would agree with mo that he does 

 not fjet as much benefit as the corn grower? 

 Certainly not. 



123. Then let us take the dairy farmer; what 

 advantage do*i be. get from the guarantees? None; 

 lie is not meant to. 



121. But that is a very large trade, is it not? 

 There again, as I have already said, the Kir/li-l: 

 farmer has the milk market entirely to himself. 



125. What benefit does the market gardener get? 

 He has his market pretty well to himself. 



126. You mean to say he can recoup himself by 

 putting up the pfice? Yes, by putting up the price. 



127. And, I suppose, as to the fruit grower, you 

 say the same? In the main. yes. 



128. Under the Wages Board, the wages have to be 

 fixed by the employers and the employed, have not 

 they? Yes. 



129. And they are unlimited in the amount which 

 can be fixed under the Act? In theory, I suppose an 

 unlimited wage can be fixed. 



130. The loss would have to be paid by the 

 guarantee? The guarantee has to be verified by Par- 

 liament. 



131. Exactly; and therefore the only limit is by the 

 guarantee. Is that the best arrangement, do you 

 think, that the employer and the employed shall agree 

 amongst themselves to put up the rate of wages, 

 for instance, and leave the taxpayer to pay it? No; 

 and that was certainly not the intention. 



132. But is not it likely to work out in that way? 

 No, I do not think it is. 



133. The workman has no inducement to keep it 

 down and what inducement has the farmer? By the 

 fact that if he wants a higher guarantee he has to 

 go and prove his case to Parliament. 



134. No. The guarantee has to be fixed by Par- 

 liament, I understand? Suppose tho employers and 

 the employed upon the Wages Board at the present 

 time arrived at an agreement amongst themselves to 

 pay 10 a week? 



135. We will not say anything absurd? But does 

 not that dominate the situation? People would not 

 do things which are absurd, and your claim is that 

 the parties may conspire to bleed the State. 



136. I do not say to conspire, but their mutual 

 agreement is the result of calling upon the State to 

 pay, is not it? Well, the State will refuse to pay at 

 a certain point. 



137. That is the only thing you can say ; that is 

 the only protection that the State has? That is so; 

 but you see, as I tried to make out in my evidence, 

 we never conceived that this Wages Board would 

 be fixing rates of wages. We conceived that it would 

 fix a minimum, which is to be a minimum -the wage 

 any decent man ought to have in the country ; but it 

 is not concerned to fix the actual rate of wages. 



138. But you are aware, are you not that iu very 

 many wages the minimum becomes the maximum? 

 That may be true about prices, that the maximum 

 may become the minimum, but I do not think it 

 follows in this case of wages. I think you can still 

 have before your mind a possible action of the State 

 fixing a minimum rate of wage of all the men in the 

 country. 



13S). I agree with you that that is what the Act 

 tays; we are starting on that basis; but is not it the 

 fact, as to the wages now being asked for under the 

 Wages Boards, that the better class workman com- 

 plainc- that he is put on a par with the worst and 

 least competent workman? No, I have not heard 

 that complaint myself among farm employees. I do 

 not see any more differentiation or any less differen- 

 tiation in tho wages on individual farms to-day than 

 before ; it was a great complaint before the Wages 

 Board. 



140. And I suggest that it is greater now? When 

 the flat rate of wages prevailed, there was great com- 

 plaint. 



141. You agree with mo that the skilled agricultural 

 labourer is a very highly skilled man? Yes. 



142. And an ordinary labourer would not be a 

 skilled man? He may be very indifferent; there 

 are enormous variations in quality. 



143. Leaving it there for a moment, I would only 

 y-k you this: If you get a minimum rate of w:i e 

 fixed, I take it that at tho present rate that cannot 



