156 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1 Ave., 1899. 
It is not a wise thing, in my opinion, to help one branch of agriculture more than 
another, It has a tendency to create a feeling of distrust between the farmers, which 
is used with effect by demagogues and pretended farmers’ friends for their own 
urposes, and to the general disorganisation of the farmers in their relations with the 
fody politic. Lastly, I would touch briefly upon the question of the franchise I know I 
am on very debatable ground, but I contend that the farmer should look the position 
squarely in the face. Now he is just one man out of many. He produces and exports 
and pays the interest bill, while others live more or less directly upon the fruits of his 
labour, Yet so little is the importance of the farmer recognised that so long as he 
has one vote there are plenty who contend that they should rest satisfied, even if his 
vote is discounted twenty times over by an equal Pr eee given to every other person 
in the country, whether he produces or whether he is a bird of passage. _ In the fore- 
going I do not wish it to be thought that I am writing in a petulant spirit or cavilling 
against those in power. We can all admit that the progress of agriculture in Queens- 
land of late years affords supe evidence that the great producing industries are not 
hampered more than elsewhere, but I am urging further advance and greater 
recognition of the importance of agriculture throughout Queensland. I trust I have 
succeeded in drawing some attention to a few vital points on the main question, which 
I regard as the organisation of the agricultural interests. Our aims as producers from 
the soil are identical, and we should stand together not only in this colony but 
throughout Australia. It is a scathmg commentary on the supineness of the farmers 
that while all economic writers admit the great aa indeed the paramount importance 
of agriculture, that that importance is apparently forgotten by the great bulk of the 
people whose political privilege it is to have a determining voice in directing the State’s 
relation to the farmer. 
On the conclusion of Mr. Swayne’s paper, the discussion, which had been 
adjourned for lunch, was resumed. 
Mr. G. W. Porr (Proserpine) : Mr. Fischer took rather a pessimistic view of 
co-operation, but for my own part J consider it an admirable system, and I have 
been connected with central mills for 5 years. The central mills are established 
on the co-operative principle, and they have done a vast amount of good to the 
country. Mr. Peek’s paper on co-operation I consider an excellent one, and I 
must congratulate him upon it. The views expressed therein are in accordance 
with my own; and although there are one or two little pomts upon which I do 
not agree with him, J shall let them pass. If, as far as it extends to the 
central mills, co-operation were carried out in the spiritin which it was intended, 
it would be productive of far more good than it has been. As the central mills 
now are, there is a certain amount of farce in them, because those men owning 
large areas of land are benefiting by the farmers who settle upon them, reaping, 
as it were, an unearned increment. The value of those lands, previous to the 
establishment of the mills, was very small, but since then the price has gone up 
considerably. ‘To a certain extent I blame the present Government for not 
making greater use of the Agricultural Lands Purchase Act, and not buying up 
all those lands in the vicinity of proposed central mills. That land, previous 
to the erection of the mills, could have been purchased at a very low rate—in 
fact, for about a fifth of its value at the present time. If the Government had 
‘done this, I am sure the central mills would have been in a far better position 
than they are to-day, simply because a far larger number of farmers would haye 
been able to have settled on the land. Land in the vicinity of mills, that is 
now worth, say, £5 per acre, could have been purchased previous to the erection 
of the mills, at 10s.; and if the Government had taken it at that price, the 
could have let farmers have it at, say, 2, which would have resulted in mith 
more land being put under cane. With regard to co-operation, our Government 
subsidises the funds of agricultural associations, and therefore recognises its 
value. Co-operation is a democratic principle. As for cheap money to farmers, 
T do not altogether hold with Dr. Thomatis in this matter, because my experience 
is that if a man is able to get money at a cheap rate he grasps more than is 
really good for him. When he takes the money he, perhaps, sees his way clear . 
to repay it—that is, if he has good seasons. But if the season fails he has to 
encumber himself to pay the interest, and, therefore, I cannot support cheap 
money to farmers under any consideration. As far as co-operation is concerned 
