‘Q ., 3:5.

Insert Foot of Page 84: (3)

adverse to the government encouraging and fostering
the live stock ‘business, I do believe that legislat-
ion which will interfere with a farmer's property
rights, which will curtail and hamper in the disposal
of his property will be ill—received by him. The
solicitude of the government will be misunderstood
by him and it might appear that it is intended to
furnish the urban pupulation with Juicy beefstedk

at a lower price.

The truth is that the profit making

possibilities in the live stock business are not

yet apparent to a large number of the grain raising
farmers and it must be admitted that the Argentine
cannot be quoted as an example here since the con~
ditions there are radically different. Of the

land occupied by gho grain raising farmer, it requires
a large acreage to feed his live stock, means expen-
sive shelter, extensive stable feeding and increased
labor and profits are much diminished and perhaps
vanish entirely.

To the small settler with his few head
of stock, this legislation might ofter work a hard-
ship. He is often short of money and through dire
necessity, it might be imperative to dispose of
female cattle for slaughter purposes or he might
find it necessary to slaughter an unprofitable cow,
though it is healthy and sound.

If cattle raising in this province contin-
ues to be as profitable as it is often said to be, it
would indeed be a phenomenon if this occupation would
not rapidly spread and increase without legislation
to force its growth.

In conclusion, I might say that it is in-
comprehensible to me that by increasing the supply
of live stock the profits to the producer would be
increased. I am of the opinion that the contrary
would be the case.

In View that in these latter days, the
farmer is receiving so much advice from railroad
presidents, Bank Managers and Eastern mnufacturers,
it might appear advisable to give him a free hand
to work out the live stock problem in his own way.

Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Em. J. Heilicke.