MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



151 



19 August, 1919.] 



MR. J. O. VJNTEE, F.S.S. 



[Continued. 



farmer either lived on his own capital or on his land- 

 lord's capital. 



3778. Previous to that time? Yes. 



3779. Is it not true that a number of farmers are 

 not possessed of a great deal of capital, and that 

 some of them are working on borrowed capital? 

 They were. 



3780. And therefore if they happen to have a very 

 bad time nothing could keep them from the Bank- 

 ruptcy Court? It did not keep them from the Bank- 

 ruptcy Court. Thirty years ago they were going 

 down like ninepins. 



3781. I am taking the period leading up to the 

 eight years which you have mentioned. I under- 

 stand that from 1906 there has been a fair living 

 profit for the farmer? Yes. 



3782. Previous to that the position and circum- 

 stances of the industry were very precarious and 

 men had to live on their capital ? Yes, previous to 

 that. 



3783. In the case of farmers who had no capital, if 

 they were in that position they could not be long 

 without going bankrupt? Up to 1907 certainly a 

 study of the " Gazette " will show that that was the 

 case. 



3784. I understood you to state that in 1905 farm- 

 ing was a fairly remunerative business? It showed a 

 living profit, not an extravagant one, under pre-war 

 conditions when the pound was worth a pound. 



3785. 1905 would be just about the end of that very 

 bad period which evidently you have in mind? 

 Which commenced in 1879. 



3786. You still thought, in face of that, that the 

 industry was a profitable one and gave encouragement 

 to the farmer. That was your opinion at that time? 

 I do not think I said that. 



3787. I rather gathered that was your answer to 

 the question Mr. Thomas Henderson put to you with 

 regard to the evidence you gave before the Royal 

 Statistical Society? I will go so far as to say this, 

 that the industry so far as I knew it for the seven 

 years before the war gave a farmer a reasonable re- 

 turn on his capital and a living, if you iike, to a man 

 who was careful and who was not indebted to any- 

 body for capital. 



3788. You would agree that some farmers were 

 working on borrowed capital previous to 1906? Up 

 to when? 



3789. In the 1906 period? Many of them iu fact, 

 I could go so far as to say most of them but when 

 you have so many experts in the room here I do 

 not know why you should ask me that. 



3790. I am rather questioning you on your 

 evidence? I have as Chairman of the Income Tax 

 Commissioners for a good many years in our county 

 had opportunities of knowing of course, I cannot 

 divulge what I have learnt but generally I should 

 agree that a very large number of farmers had 

 borrowed capital. 



3791. You stated that the conditions of the in- 

 dustry before 1906 were such that men had to live on 

 their own capital? Prior to that, and they did. 



3792. You also stated in answer to Mr. Langford 

 that not many farmers do as well as yourself? I 

 think I have done quite as well as, if not a little better 

 than, perhaps, the majority of farmers who have 

 similar occupations. 



37!>.'i. If your own personal experience of farming 

 is such that in 1906 you considered the industry did 

 not give a return and farmers had to live on their 

 capital, those who had capital, what must have been 

 the position of farmers who were working on borrowed 

 capital and who were not doing as well as you were 

 doing in farming? Their position was simply hope- 

 less and many of them were bankrupt. 



3794. I understood you to say in reply to a question 

 by Mr. Thomas Henderson that in the evidence you 

 gave before the Royal Statistical Society in 1905 the 

 Bankruptcy Courts did not show that farming was a 

 very unremunerative industry? I do not remember 

 that. 



3795. I rather understood Mr. Thomas Henderson 

 to put that point to you as one of the statements you 

 made on that occasion? I do not remember saying 

 that, but I can look it up at home. I have no recol- 

 lection of saying it. 



3796. Could you tell us what your average crop has 

 been per acre for those six years? I could give you 

 the average crop for 21 years of wheat, oats, and 

 barley the average quantity, the average price, and 

 the average cost per acre. 



3797. What was the average for wheat? I cannot 

 tell you from memory, I have got it all at home. 



3798. Would it be a higher average than for this 

 year? Far and away higher. 



3799. 1919 would be a lower average? I looked 

 back the other night, and as far as I could tell I 

 should have to go back to 1901 to find the quantities 

 as low as I estimate they will be this year. 



3800. Do you consider that is due to it being a bad 

 season this year? We have had the seasons at the 

 wrong time all the way through the year beginning 

 last September. 



3801. The season from the point of view of your 

 farm has been a very bad one, has It? Very bad. 



3802. In regard to the deterioration of the land, 

 over what period do you carry that back? I was 

 only dealing with deterioration arising out of labour 

 conditions during the war and the Government con- 

 trol combined. 



3803. You say you estimate the average crop this 

 year at 3} to 4 quarters per acre? I do not think 

 it will exceed 3i even on better land for barley or 

 wheat. I have grown on my land 6 quarters of 

 wheat and 6 quarters of barley at times, so that it is 

 not very bad land. 



3804. That would not be in an unfavourable 

 season ? No, in a very favourable one. 



3805. You cannot give us the average? No, but 

 I could get it for you. 



3806. It does not follow that the bad crop this year 

 may not be due to deterioration of land; it may be 

 due to the bad season? I would not say that fol- 

 lowed at all ; it may be due to both. 



3807. You could not say that it is actually duo to 

 deterioration, and that therefore the deterioration 

 exists? I cannot prove that. 



3808. That is an estimate 

 entirely. 



3809. Therefore it may not mean an expenditure 

 of 4 or 5 an aero to put it back into condition 

 again? No, but it may cost more. 



3810. It may cost considerably less? I would not 

 put the word " considerably " in; it may be less. 



3811. Do you know of any existing defects which 

 are prejudicial to farming which might be removed 

 by national effort? Your question is rather on a 

 par with four questions we have been asked lately. 

 We have been asked to instruct the Prime Minister 

 what was to be done with the landlord, and with the 

 labourer, and with the tenant, and with the land. 



3812. Do you think that the transport facilities, for 

 example, are as good as they might be in the 

 interests of the industry ? No, I think they are 

 not. 



3813. You think that the industry might be helped 

 by an improvement in that direction, at any rate? 

 Yes, I should admit that. 



on your part ? Yes, 



(The Witneii withdrew.) 



