1 Jozy, 1901.] "QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL, 39 
success. Several of us have shares, but no one is allowed to have more than 
£100 worth. We do not study the shareholder, but the milk supplier. If 
there is a surplus after all expenses have been paid, of course we pay a 
dividend; but the factory is not run with that object in view. My idea is for 
farmers to co-operate among themselves, and mutually assist each other by 
lending one another, if need be, money ; and that, as a matter of fact, is what is 
done in our district. 
Mr. W. P. Cooxstry (Brisbane): We all like cheap money but, as is well 
known, cheap goods are sometimes nasty. It may turn out so with cheap 
money. It certainly would do so if the money were lent out indiscriminately 
by the Government. We would have every Tom, Dick, and Harry coming to 
the Government for a loan, and, therefore, if we are to have cheap money it 
would be as well to see that it is lent properly. The borrower should have a 
holding before a loan was granted, and then this should be granted only to 
enable him to stock his farm or possibly erect machinery to treat his product 
or otherwise. To my mind a good plan would be a system to enable the farmer 
to make use of his product on much the same lines as the Sugar Works 
Guarantee Act. Of course, there the Government have some assets, although, in, 
some cases that I know of, if they tried to realise on them they would not get 
much, I know where money was lent in connection with one of these sugar- 
mills where the valuation of theproperty was made at a tremendous rate over 
the value of the property. Those properties must necessarily fall into the 
hands of the Government. They are not where the sugar-mill is, and as to 
getting cane to the mill there are no facilities for that being done at present, 
and never will be, so far as I can see. We had a cheap money Bill before 
Parliament last year, but it fell through. Ido not know why, but Mr. Gibson 
and others who were responsible for its being fired out, could doubtless tell us. 
However, if we are to have a system of cheap money definitely introduced into 
the State, it must be for some ultimate good. It will be no use giving cheap 
money to a man who knows nothing about farming, but if it can be given to 
assist a genuine farmer I think a lot of benefit will accrue. 
Mr. T. Burcess (Forest Hill): The principle involved in this discussion 
I am satisfied, by bitter experience, is a right one. and it is difficult to under- 
stand that, as soon as ever a question is brought up involving a great principle 
which every man feels convinced is a correct one, people start to rake up 
difficulties and start to work out the details of the thing before they have laid 
down the principle or agreed to the principle involved. Did anyone ever yet 
see a good thing that was got cheaply? The greater the difficulty, the greater 
the good in the principle very often. I know what it is to pay interest. I have 
been through the mill, and I can assure you that if I could get £1,000 to- 
morrow at 5 per cent. I would not touch a shilling of it. As long as I live I 
shall never borrow another shilling. I shall stand alone if I die with but one 
acre of land. Mr. Robinson made a remark about rotten security. You have 
to pay 9 and 10 per cent. if your security is rotten, but it is the men with good 
security who do not want to borrow money. If you do want to, it is 
easy enough to get it. It is the men with the rotten security who 
need the money, the men who are going on to the land and who are 
starting their struggles. This cheap money system can be introduced, and 
I am certain that we have men who will be able to introduce a scheme 
that will be of benefit to the pioneer population of our State. I know 
it is beset with difficulties, because our territory is so large and the operations 
of the scheme will extend over thousands of miles of country. But what 
do difficulties exist for? Only for strong men to overcome. Did you ever see 
a strong man who never met a difficulty in his life? In our present Minister 
we haye a strong man, and in our late lamented Minister we had a strong man ; 
and such men are capable of preparing a scheme and carrying out that scheme 
to the benefit of the State. I say it isa shame Mr. Chataway’s Bill was thrown 
out of the Upper House last year. This was quite on a par with a lot of the 
