Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1926 > Special Committee on Home Grown Tobacco Duties > Interim Report and Final Report - Home Grown Tobacco Duties

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 11adh Márta, 1926.

(Thursday 11th March, 1926.)

The Committee met at 10 a.m. in Room No. 2.

Senator the Dowager Countess of Desart, called and examined.

Chairman.

182. You are not growing tobacco now?—No.

183. When did you cease to grow it?— 1912. It was grown up to that year by my brother-in-law, Captain Otway Cuffe, who was then in charge of the place. He grew tobacco from 1905 to 1912, when he died. I carried on for a year after his death.

184. Did you find any difficulty in getting a market?—There was a good deal of difficulty until he had the industry established. After that there was no difficulty.

185. In your précis of evidence you say that “Up to a certain point the handling of the crop was independent of the weather?”—In so far as we found that we could get it air-cured just as well as in the barn. That discovery was made by accident one very wet summer when we had more tobacco than we could put into the barn. We put it into an old hay barn and it did just as well as inside a heated barn.

186. When you came to market that tobacco did you find it was the same quality as the other?—Just the same.

187. Is any tobacco being grown in your district now?—No. One of the reasons that I took it up was to interest the farmers in it. However, they took no interest in it, as they were too busy cattle farming.

188. Was there any other grower in your part of the country?—I was the only grower in Kilkenny.

189. Have you any figures showing what it cost you to grow it per acre?— No, I have no figures. I am aware that tobacco-growing gives employment to a large number of people.

190. Could you say if it paid its way? —It did pay its way on account of the rebate that was given by the Government.

Deputy Egan.

191. I would like if you could give the Committee a little more information about the number of people that were employed?—I have a very vague recollection because I found that the crop was more than I could handle when my brother-in-law died. It was too big a business for me to manage and I wanted the land for my dairy farm, in which I was more interested. It did not occur to me to make notes at the time and, as I say, I was only in charge for one season.

192. I suppose you would say that relatively it gave a good deal of employment, when compared with other crops? —About three times as much employment from the commencement in March, until the crop is harvested in October. A large number of people were employed weeding and looking after the crop.

193. You have not been in touch with the crop since 1912?—No. The manner in which the subsidy was paid was altered then and I did not feel able to undertake the new arrangement.

194. What was the subsidy at that time?—I cannot tell for certain. I got £400 for the crop of seven acres that I sold that year. I should not like to go into figures now but at that time the Government gave back so much per pound, according to what was in bond. After that the system was changed.

Deputy Sears.

195. Despite the fact that the crop paid well the local farmers showed no disposition to take up the growing of it? —None whatever.

196. And I suppose it was known locally that the crop was a paying one?— Yes, but I think it was also realised that it required a good deal of supervision.

197. A question that would weigh with farmers would be that there was no stability or security about the rebate?— Yes.

198. And, as things turned out, that was the case?—Yes.

199. That would discourage farmers from growing it?—Yes.

200. And they could not change their system of rotation unless they felt secure?—I think that has a good deal to do with it.

201. If there was only a narrow margin of profit from the crop, as some witnesses have told us, despite the giving of more employment little could be said for the crop?—Yes.

Deputy Egan.

202. Where did you market the toabcco in those days?—Partly in Belfast and partly in London. The last crop was sold to a firm in London.

203. Do you consider there was a fairly keen demand for the particular kind of tobacco you were accustomed to grow?—I do not think there was a special demand. We looked out for customers and then discussed the prices.

Chairman.

204. You sold the whole crop?—Yes.

205. Did you find the regulations irksome?—I had so little experience of it that I cannot say. During the season that I speak of, the manager who worked under Captain Cuffe handled the crop for me, so that I had very little trouble.

206. It has been suggested that the regulations are the cause of preventing farmers from taking up the growing of tobacco, as they have to enter into heavy bonds?—Yes.

207. You had not that experience?— No, as these regulations were not in force when I was growing. The only question was about getting a rebate from the Government. I do not remember entering into any bonds. The system was then changed, and that was one of the things that made me give up growing the crop.

Chairman.—The Committee are very much obliged to you for your evidence.

Mr. James Caffrey, called and examined.

Chairman.

208. How long have you been growing tobacco, Mr. Caffrey?—Since 1912.

209. Are you still growing tobacco?— Yes.

210. How much did you grow last year? —I grew a rood and ten perches, Irish; that is about half a statute acre.

211. Can you give us any idea of what it cost you in wages and everything else to grow this half statute acre last year? —Well, I have not got any accounts as to the cost in wages. I have a young family of sons and daughters, and the work was practically all done by my own family. I think some of the growers keep accounts for the purpose of ascertaining the wages and costs to them, but I did not.

212. Would you say what rebate in excise duty, should be made in order to make the growing of tobacco a paying proposition?—I think a shilling would be very small. It would take 1/3 to make it a paying proposition.

213. I see in a statement sent in by Mr. Markey that he recommends 1/6 on export poundage to England?—We claim that if we get an export poundage rate we would have a wider market.

214. In England?—Yes, in England and in the North of Ireland. I suppose the remission of duty would not apply to England or the North of Ireland.

215. When did you last sell tobacco?— I sold the 1922 crop in 1923.

216. Did you get a crop in the succeeding year?—Yes, I had a crop in 1923, 1924 and 1925, and the 1924 and 1925 crops are unsold yet.

217. Do you remember how much you got for the 1922 crop?—I do. The sum amounted to £27 10s. but there was £10 out of that bonus for the shed. It was the finish of the ten years’ scheme. I got £17 10s. Otherwise I would have got £27. I had to pay up £10 to finish up the ten years’ scheme of bonus for the sheds.

218. How many lbs. of tobacco did you get to the half-acre?—I do not recollect how many that year but I know what I had this year. This year I sent in 654 lbs.; that was the weight sent to the re-handler. I expect that will be about 500 lbs. when rehandled and I think my crop was something similar in 1922. Both were good crops.

219. That is about 1,000 lbs. to the acre?—Yes, which I consider a good crop. Of course you can get more and you can get less.

220. Deputy Mulvany.—Would you consider 800 lbs. to the acre a fair average? —I would consider it low enough as an average. You could safely put it down at 800 lbs. It is possible to grow 1,200 lbs. but that would be exceptional and 1,000 lbs. to the acre is good.

Deputy Egan.

221. You would get a better yield on a small rather than on a big acreage?— Well the small farmer never could have a big acreage. An acre is as much as he could deal with. His shed, for instance, would not accommodate more, and there is a great deal of labour in connection with tobacco growing. The labour in connection with an acre or half an acre is as much as he could deal with.

222. Deputy Michael Doyle.—How many acres of land do you hold?—I hold 30 Irish acres.

Deputy Beamish.

223. You suggest the sum of 1/3 additional allowance?—Yes.

224. That would merely pay you for the growing of tobacco?—Yes.

225. Would that pay full Trade Union wages to the members of your family who worked at it, or would it only give a little to each? What I want to know is, would this 1/3 enable you to pay full Trade Union wages?—I think it would pay Trade wages to children. Their wages, of course, would not be as high as men’s wages.

226. You mean it would help you to pay a small rate of wages to children?— Yes. You see in the growing of tobacco children can do a great deal. The small farmer does not do much work at it during working hours. The work is done as a matter of fact after hours when the children come home from school. My wife and I often went down with the children to the tobacco plot and spent until 8 o’clock at night working at it.

227. This 1/3 would not allow you to pay the rates of overtime in the trade which, of course, are higher than those for ordinary working hours?—No, of course if you had to employ hired labour you could not get through it at all.

228. Deputy Cole.—If you employed labour and if you were allowed 1/6 would it pay?—It would take 1/6, if you had to pay the full trade rates of wages to adult labour.

229. What price would you expect to get then?—I would not get much more than 1/6 a lb. in all probability.

Deputy M. Doyle.

230. With regard to the 1/3, do you mean that you should get that rebate in addition to the short price?—Yes.

231. How many grades do you make? —Our tobacco is made in three grades.

232. Averaging the three, about how much per lb. did you get from the re-handler from the sale of your last crop? What would be the current price this year?—I think it will be about 1/6 but I could not be quite sure. Sir Nugent Everard could give you these figures.

233. Would you have 1/6 for the leaf and 1/3 from the Government?—We would not get 1/6 and 1/3. Our leaf will make probably not more than 6d., and then if we were to get 1/3 that would make 1/9. Then there would be 4d. or 41/3d. per lb. to the rehandler, and that would leave us 1/3 or 1/4 per lb. for ourselves, and I think that is the least we could grow it for.

234. Would your short price cover the expense of growing?—At present, no.

235. How much short would it be, say, in the case of half an acre?—If we could get the price we got for the 1923 tobacco it would do.

236. But at the current price to-day?— I really do not know what to-day’s price is. I suppose we would have to get a shilling per lb.

237. Would that 1/- per lb. cover your expenses in cultivation and production? —Yes, but the re-handler would have to get his charges out of it.

238. Would he take his charge out of that?—He naturally would have to.

240. Then you would only get 7½d.?— —Yes.

241. That would not cover your cost of production?—We would be growing it then at a loss.

242. I suppose, to pay you for the cost of production, you would want something more than 1/3 or 1/-?—Yes.

Deputy Cole.

243. What crops do you grow before the tobacco?—Turnips or potatoes.

244. And what crop after?—Generally wheat.

245. Would not wheat be inclined to lodge after tobacco?—I have never found it so. I would like to make a statement upon that point if I may.

Chairman.—Yes, certainly, we should be glad to hear it.

Witness.—I wish to stress very much the importance of tobacco growing in conjunction with the sowing of wheat. Owing to the heavy rainfall of our winters, in recent years, it is almost impossible to sow winter wheat, and to this cause may be attributed a good deal of the decline in winter wheat sowing. In the days of our fathers, when wheat was extensively sown, the land intended for wheat, say, next year, was left fallow this year. It was tilled during the summer, and the wheat was sown early in October. Thus, they avoided the always doubtful experiment of trying to sow wheat in winter. But the days of “fallowing” are over. The farmer cannot now afford to let his land lie fallow for a season, and yet the question of increasing our present wheat supply is both urgent and important. In the neighbourhood of cities or large towns where early potatoes are grown for the market it is possible for the farmer to have his land ready to sow wheat in October, but this does not apply to the ordinary country farmer who plants practically nothing but main-crop potatoes, which, generally, cannot be lifted until November. If the farmer lifts his potatoes early in October, in order to sow wheat, he stands a good chance of losing his crop altogether, as it would be immature. If he pulls his turnips, at the same time, he probably loses ten tons per Irish acre, perhaps more. What crop, then, can he grow that will fit in with sowing his wheat at the proper time? He certainly can grow no crop that will fit in better than tobacco, and he will have a far better yield after the tobacco than after any other crop. I have grown a small quantity of wheat every year for at least thirty-five years. Indeed, I might say I have grown wheat all my life and my father before me. We always grew about a rood or half-acre of wheat for home consumption, and every farmer if he wants to live will grow what wheat he uses himself. I have grown wheat after most kinds of root crops, but the wheat I have grown after tobacco was far superior to that grown after any other crop. I could always get four barrels per Irish acre more after tobacco than after any other crop, with a corresponding increase in straw and a much better quality grain. Furthermore, if the land is then laid down to grass you will have a much heavier meadow and a better quality than after any other crop. Whether you attribute it to the fertilisers employed in the growing of tobacco, or to the fact that tobacco-growing destroys all weeds in land, or to both, there is undoubtedly a permanent improvement in the land on which tobacco is grown. The wheat I sowed in October was over the ground in sixteen days. The wheat I sowed in November was not visible for forty-five days over the ground, so that in the matter of wheat-growing great importance should be attached to tobacco-growing. In the future if the small farmer does not grow as much wheat as will keep his home he will find himself down and out.

Deputy M. Doyle

246. You invariably sow wheat after tobacco?—I would rather, if I could, plant tobacco twice, and I think I would get a better crop the second time. There is one thing about tobacco growing, no weeds will grow up with the crop of tobacco. Tobacco is a very quick-growing crop, it springs up very quickly. Its leaves spread out very rapidly. If you saw a crop to-day and saw it a week hence you would hardly believe it was the same. It not only clears the ground of weeds but it leaves it improved in that respect for years and years afterwards.

247. Provided you sowed it twice would you not be inclined to have soft weeds growing up?—No, I think not. If I laid down an acre of corn and one rood of that had previously been planted in tobacco, I could see that rood in the field, because of its extra fertility, for years after. During the three or four years that the field is laid down you could see the plot where the tobacco had grown and you could know that it was in front of the other parts of the field for meadow or grazing.

248. Do you use any shelter for your growing?—No.

249. Then you could plant it in any field?—There are two or three fields I keep in tillage. I till from six to eight Irish acres.

250. Do any of your neighbours or other growers use artificial shelter or are their fields sheltered?—I do not think there is any necessity for artificial shelter unless the field is very exposed. If you got a locality on the north side of a hill perhaps you would need it.

251. So that it is not really necessary to use any artificial shelter. You never grew it more than two years in succession?—No, two years is the most I grew it, but then I always arranged to sow wheat after it.

252. Do you believe that you could have grown it successfully for three years in succession?—If I had not felt the necessity of sowing wheat at that time, I would have grown it for three years in succession.

253. What percentage of leaf do you get out of it?—On the best crops this year I do not believe there is one-third leaf, but even what they do not call leaf is very much the same. I do not think there is any great difference in it except that the leaf is better for an outside wrapper.

254. Do you think your leaf could be used in plug wrapper?—I do.

255. You are quite sure it could?—I really think it could; there is no question about it. I have 654lbs. at Randlestown this year and it would do you good to see it. I have seen samples of leaf of the Turkish and Nyasaland tobacco and I do not believe it could compare with the Irish-grown tobacco.

256. You had a good body in it?—Yes.

257. What time do you generally plant it?—The season has a good deal to do with that, and also the seed bed, but I generally commence about the 22nd or 23rd May, and I would have it down about the 10th June.

258. Deputy Cole.—When would you take up the crop?—The first you plant is the first you cut, naturally, and the various plantings will come in rotation. The first will be cut probably the first week of September, and you would have it done before the end of September.

259. Deputy M. Doyle.—Did you have any difficulty with your seed beds?—Not recently. First when I sowed it I had, but then we were not educated in any way as to the use of glass. The ordinary country farmer knew nothing about glass and we had to learn a bit from our own mistakes, perhaps, but once I got to know the seed properly I did not find any difficulty with the seed beds.

260. Were the failures you had at first due to inexperience?—They were. My tobacco bed was too hot. I did not keep it damp enough. I made the bed all with horse dung, which was a mistake, and I did not put clay on top of it to start with. I did not give it moisture enough.

261. The seed did not come up at all then?—Oh, it did; it was not exactly a failure.

Deputy Mulvany.

262. You believe that if tobacco growing were put on a good sound basis, it would induce people to grow it?—Yes, the small farmer, as a matter of fact, is at present at his wits’ end to know what he will grow to get a profit.

263. Do you think it would lead to an increase of tillage?—Yes, there is another aspect of it if you will allow me to go into it. That is in reference to the curing barn. I had no such thing as a hay shed. As a rule, no small farmer has. Very few farmers have even a shed into which to put their carts, machinery or anything like that. The curing barn is a great asset to a small farmer; it is fairly big, though put up in a temporary way. The barn is in use for the curing of tobacco only for three months of the year, and consequently it can be used for various other purposes in connection with the farm for the other nine months. When I bring my hay into the haggard I put it into small pikes, and when I get my tobacco out of the shed I cut down the pike in the middle and put, say, two tons of hay into the shed. I then put in a junk of straw so that I then have always my hay and straw dry. The other end of the shed can be used as a shelter for calves and for feeding purposes, and the central portion of the shed is available for storing and pulping roots or sheltering carts, machinery, and so on. At present you see mowing machines and other machinery like that, thrown against a fence when they are not in use. I find my barn very useful for these purposes.

264. Deputy M. Doyle.—On what terms did you erect it? What did it cost you? —It cost me nothing, but there was so much a year stopped out of the bonus. We were getting £10 an acre that year. The curing barn, when it was first erected, was very cheap.

265. Deputy Egan.—I think we are getting away from the terms of reference.

Witness.—My barn is fairly big; it cost about £28 or £30 at first but I would not be quite positive.

266. Deputy Beamish.—Of course, you could get a grant from the Board of Works to erect that even if you had not grown tobacco because the barn is useful for other things. You could get that loan even if you did not grow tobacco?— Yes, but you would not be able to erect it now as cheaply as it was erected at that time.

267. Deputy M. Doyle.—You believe that the quality of the tobacco would be good if it were grown?—I believe and I have no doubt about it, apart from what I hope to gain or lose by tobacco growing myself, that tobacco can be grown and grown successfully in this country no matter what anybody says to the contrary. I believe also it can be manufactured and smoked. I saw, myself, in ’18, ’19, ’20 and ’21, when men were paying 2/6 an ounce for tobacco, they were willing to come to my tobacco shed, beg the tobacco stalks, grind them up and smoke them.

268. Deputy Beamish.—Are you aware that the acreage of tobacco in Ireland, although tobacco was so expensive in these years, decreased enormously?—Yes, simply because the farmers found that other crops commenced to pay better.

269. Deputy Egan.—I would like to ask a question about 1922. You sold your tobacco in 1922 for £27 10s. and you had to take £10 off that to pay back the instalment on the shed. You got a yield at the rate of 500 lbs. from this half statute acre?—Yes, my crop would be about that.

270. That would work out at about 1/1 per lb. Did that pay you?—I think you would be wrong in that.

271. You got £27 10s. for that 500 lbs.?—Yes, but I paid £10 off that.

272. The value of your crop was 1/1 per lb., ruling out the shed question altogether. Would that price pay you?— It would. I could grow tobacco if I got that but the reason it works out so well is that the yield is very good.

Deputy M. Doyle.—It is at the rate of 1,000 lbs. per statute acre, which according to the evidence is 300 lbs. over the average.

273. Deputy Mulvany.—Would that price pay a farmer who would require to employ labour?—I would say that he would want to get a bit more.

274. Deputy Sears.—You got £27 10s. for the half statute acre. Can you tell how much the subsidy from the State or the rebate was for that half statute acre? —I did not make up my mind to go into that aspect of the question. One of the growers here has got all these figures. The subsidy was £10 per acre, as far as I can remember.

275. Deputy Egan.—In 1922?—Yes, even in 1922. It lasted until then.

276. Was there a subsidy on the acreage in 1922?—There was, but that was the year it came to an end.

277. How much did that amount to in the case of the half statute acre?

Deputy M. Doyle.—Five pounds.

Witness.—Another aspect with regard to the quality of the tobacco grown is that during the years when it was not paying, most of the growers simply grew the tobacco for the purpose of meeting the instalments on their sheds. Naturally they did not put their best into it and they did not grow it in the way it should be grown. I believe a far better quality of tobacco could have been grown during these years.

278. Deputy M. Doyle.—The growers got indifferent?—Yes; they simply grew it as tillage under the Extra Tillage Order. You had to till, but you did not care whether you grew a crop or not. In the same way these men grew their tobacco. I know that was the attitude of a good many of the growers, and tobacco was not grown up to the standard at which it could have been grown.

278. Deputy Egan.—You would get better results if you were paid as you suggest?—Certainly, we would get better results. There is a lot of talk now about having a certain flavour in tobacco. We must become epicures when we are paupers. At the time when we had money to burn we could smoke anything. We smoke nothing now but the finest cuts.

279. Do you smoke Irish tobacco?—I do.

280. Do you like it?—I smoke plenty of my own growing.

281. Deputy Beamish.—Do you pay duty on that?—I would rather you did not ask me that question.

Deputy Sears.

282. In 1922 the State gave a subsidy to the extent of £10 an acre and £5 a half acre. If you had a yield of 500 lbs. per half acre the subsidy would come to about 4d. per lb. That was sufficient in that year. How much do you think should be paid in the present year? —The conditions are altogether different. In 1912 when the subsidy was granted we could manage all right. We could grow an acre then for £17 or £18. It would take nearly three of four times that amount now. That subsidy was intended for pre-war conditions. It did not meet the war conditions. That fact is quite evident; it is indicated by the decline of tobacco growing.

283. I find I made an error in regard to the subsidy. The subsidy on 500 lbs. of tobacco would amount to slightly over 2d. a pound. Under pre-war conditions that subsidy enabled you to grow the crop at a profit?—Yes.

284. Allowing for the altered conditions, what subsidy do you think would be equivalent to-day?—During the earlier years of the tobacco growing industry we had not such a thing as Imperial preference. We thought Imperial preference would be a great thing and that we would get 1/6 a pound. Instead of that, Imperial preference opened the door to the Indian produce. It flooded the market against us and threw our tobacco into the mire altogether.

285. Allowing for the keener competition in the British markets, how much per lb. of a subsidy, rebate or preference would you want to-day to make the crop profitable, having in view the fact that 2d. per lb. in 1922 enabled you to make a profit?—I observe your point but it would be very hard to tell. First of all, I do not know what price the manufacturer is willing to pay for the present crop of tobacco. That would have a good deal to do with it.

286. You have half an acre under tobacco, and you say that tobacco is a fine crop for small traders. In order to make the crop profitable you ask the State to assist you to some extent. You have five and a half acres of other crops, and you got no subsidy for them. You have to get the assistance of the State to make the half acre of tobacco profitable. The State comprises other small farmers, and it will be argued: why should the other small farmers contribute in order to assist you to make a profit out of your half acre? In addition, you get a better wheat crop after you have grown tobacco; you have four barrels more than you would get otherwise. That in itself is a preference. The small farmers enable you to make a good bargain; they themselves may not have a good bargain. I would like to see the tobacco industry made successful. You would want to make a very strong case in order to convince small farmers that they should pay you a certain subsidy in order that you may make your crop profitable? —I do not believe the matter can be looked at from that standpoint. You maintain that other farmers are going to subsidise me to, say, the extent of 1/- or 1/3. If you take 6d. off income tax you may say that you are subsidising the tax-payer to that extent. Suppose you take 5/- a gallon off whiskey, you may say you are subsidising to that extent. We are asking only a remission of duty. We pay it ourselves. We ask that it should be taken off, and we do not ask any other man to pay.

287. Deputy Beamish.—Who is to pay? A remission of duty means less income? —It is a very large question. The same thing applies to the whiskey duty or to the income tax. Who is to lose?

Deputy M. Doyle.—I believe Deputy Sears is losing sight of one thing. He says that you grow five and a half acres of other crops without a subsidy. Out of those crops the Government reap no benefit. Out of the half acre of tobacco, even allowing two shillings a lb., the Government reap £150. The Government do not get one shilling out of the other crops. This is a dutiable crop and out of it the Government would get £150.

288. Deputy Sears.—If there was no tobacco grown here. would not the same amount of tobacco be consumed and would not the revenue benefit to the same extent? Do they get additional revenue because it is Irish tobacco? If they do there would be some point in Deputy Doyle’s statement?—I think there is a very great point in what he says.

Deputy Sears.—Do you still maintain your point, Deputy Doyle?

Deputy M. Doyle.—To a certain extent, I do.

Deputy Sears.—Do you mean that the consumption would be increased because it was Irish-grown tobacco?

Deputy M. Doyle.—I would not say that. I am pointing to the different crops. I think the Government ought to be very glad. Tobacco growing is benefiting the country. Money could be utilised in our own country growing Irish tobacco.

Deputy Sears.—I agree that from the point of view of labour the country will benefit. It is far better to have tobacco grown in Ireland than to have to import it.

289. Chairman.—Did you find it difficult to carry out the regulations of the Excise people?—Very often I did not ask to carry them out. In most cases I did not carry them out and I just let them put up with the consequences. Asking an ordinary farmer to do a lot of these things is so much tommy rot. I never could make out why a motor car should come to my door every other week or fortnight during the season. A man would come in, put a date on one side of the book, draw a line and then put his initials on the other side. That is what he did from year’s end to year’s end. I suppose he was paid for it. I knew that gentleman to come down from Dublin to my place to do just that. If I got that man’s expenses for taking a motor car down from Dublin it would be of some use to myself and my family.

290. Deputy Mulvany.—A good deal has been said about what the revenue would lose if the rebate on tobacco were increased. Undoubtedly there would be a loss to a certain extent to the revenue but, then, would it not be better, in your opinion, that the revenue should lose a little on an industry rather than be paying people the degrading dole and allow them to stand by the walls idling?—I would certainly like to emphasise that point. Furthermore, I would like to say that, apart from any advantages I may gain, tobacco growing now stands in the balance, and if something is not now done for it, it will die out. In ten or twenty years time some other Government will recognise what has been lost. I may be prejudiced in saying this, but I think there is no class in Ireland that, at present, requires more encouragement and support than the small farmer. There is no dole for him; he is not entitled to it. The condition of small farmers all over Ireland is deplorable.

Deputy Mulvany.—The tax-gatherer and the bailiff for him.

291. Deputy Cole.—Can tobacco be grown all over Ireland?—It can be grown over a good part of Ireland.

292. Can it be grown in the West?— There are parts of the West where it can be grown. I am sure that portions of the West are just as suitable for tobacco-growing as Leinster. I have seen the very best tobacco grown on the borders of the bogs. In my view, bogland is not at all unsuitable for tobacco-growing.

Deputy Cole.

293. Would you not consider that the West of Ireland would be too cold and wet?—The exposed part of it might be, but if you leave out the very exposed parts, you have the whole central part of Ireland, almost all of which is fit for growing tobacco. In connection with that I should like to make some remarks as to the transit of tobacco compared with other crops. If any industry is to be made into a national industry, the question of transit will have to come in, because you will never get tillage enough convenient either to a beet factory or to a tobacco re-handling station that it can be dealt with by horse-haulage. Therefore, the question of rail or motor transit comes in. You can send tobacco from here to Cork to be re-handled and the transit charges would be very small comparatively. Suppose you grow an acre of beet and produce ten tons, you would probably require two railway trucks to carry that to the factory. On the other hand, you can put nine or ten acres of tobacco into one railway truck. Therefore, if the hire of a railway truck costs £5, and you require two trucks for every acre of beet, that would amount to £10. You could put ten acres of tobacco into one truck, and the carriage would be only 10/- per acre.

294. Deputy Beamish.—Nobody in Cork would import turnips or mangels from Leinster?—But suppose you start beet-growing, there is no question about it that one thousand acres of beet will never be got in Carlow or one thousand acres of tobacco in Meath.

Deputy E. Doyle.—Oh, yes, in Carlow.

Witness.—Wait and see—you have not got it yet.

Deputy Egan.—They have more than that.

Witness.—You will not get sufficient acreage within such a radius of the factory that it can be drawn by horse-haulage. The question of railway or motor transit will always enter into it, if the industry is to be made a national one. What good would a beet factory be to Ireland if the area immediately around is able to supply it?

295. Deputy Beamish.—That is not the experience in Sweden or Denmark. It may be the experience of a new State. Where you have the area of supply within a reasonable distance as in Denmark or Sweden, freightage is not of great consequence.

Witness.—I maintain that tobacco can be grown in Westmeath, Longford, or any of the midland counties, and can be railed or motor-lorried to the re-handling station without the cost of transit affecting it very much.

296. Deputy Egan.—Is there not this difficulty, that you have a tobacco crop on hands now and that it is unsaleable?— Yes.

297. What is the use of growing a large amount of tobacco if you cannot sell it? —I believe, whether I am right or wrong, that there is a boycott on our tobacco. I am firmly convinced of that, and I am as firmly convinced that our tobacco is quite suitable for manufacture and smoking.

298. Deputy Sears.—Are there no sympathetic Irish manufacturers?—Evidently not.

299. Deputy Cole.—If they had less duty to pay, would it help?—I am sure it would; it might induce them to buy it.

300. What is the duty on Irish tobacco at present?—Six and eightpence.

301. Deputy M. Doyle.—That is with the rebate off. Eight shillings is the duty on foreign tobacco.

Witness.—It was 8/2, and 1/6 was taken off for Imperial preference, which leaves 6/8. That applies to England as well as to Ireland.

302. Deputy Cole.—Supposing there was a further reduction of 2/- per lb., how would that work?—I am sure Irish manufacturers would grab it.

303. Deputy M. Doyle.—If 2/- a lb. more were allowed, we would have a large amount of tobacco grown in the country.

Witness.—Some of the large manufacturers ask the people to support Irish-manufactured tobacco, and say that they are supporting Irish labour. I maintain they are not, because seven-eighths of the labour on tobacco is in the seeding, planting, the summer attention, the harvesting and re-handling. Seven-eighths of the labour on tobacco is in the growing, re-handling and curing of it, and one-eighth in the manufacture. These manufacturers ask the people to support Irish labour, but they should really say support one-eighth Irish labour and seven-eighths coolie labour, if you like.

304. Chairman.—Is there any other matter you would like to bring up?— Tobacco growing, I think, is more of an education to small farmers than if the Department sent lecturers around the country.

305. Deputy Sears.—A very small number of small farmers?—I know, but if they did take it up, I mean. Tobacco growing has an educational value by no means small for the small farmer. It teaches him the use of glass and gives him an idea of the principles of intensive cultivation. It teaches him the use and the value of the hoe, a thing which, simple as it seems, is not sufficiently understood or appreciated by the majority of working farmers. It teaches him the importance of doing things at the proper time, and in the proper way, and when he sees the crops that can be grown on clean land after tobacco, it teaches him the necessity of keeping his other crops clean also. In all cases where tobacco growing has been taken up, it has improved the farmer’s methods of cultivating his other crops. Small farmers, as a rule, always go by rule of thumb. There are hardly any scientific principles underlying their agricultural work, but the general farming of the men who grow tobacco has considerably improved. Tobacco-growing is an education not alone for the grower, but for the whole neighbourhood.

Mr. Michael Markey, called and examined.

306. Chairman.—Are you still growing tobacco?—I did not grow any last year. I only grew it as an experiment in 1923 and 1924.

307. Did you keep accounts?—I did not. The amount I grew was so small that it was hardly worth going into detail.

308. What was the acreage?—I grew two drills in 1923, twenty perches long, and three drills in 1924, of the same length, in the same field.

309. How many lbs. did that produce? —In 1924 I produced thirty-five lbs. I could not say exactly the amount in 1923, but I received £1 8s. 5d. for the produce of the two drills.

310. What bond had you to give to the Excise for that?—Sir Nugent Everard gave a bond for a number of people, and I was included in that. I am a labour organiser in that district for the past twelve years, and from a conversation I had with the Tobacco Growers’ Secretary, I determined to see for myself whether his statements were true or not with regard to the profits that could be made from tobacco and the benefit it might be to labour. As a result of my experiment I can say that he was quite correct. I might point out my opinion with regard to its benefits to labour. My object was to try and prove that the industry would, at all events, be of benefit to the uneconomic farmer, because on the labour market we, labourers, have to compete with the sons of those uneconomic men, and if we could get them some industry that would employ their time at home our adult labourers would be nearly all absorbed on the labour market. I found that that was true. Mr. Keelan showed his books. We compared two drills of turnips with two drills of tobacco. While my two drills of tobacco produced £1 18s. 5d., the two drills of turnips only brought 15/-.

Deputy Mulvany.

311. Have you compared the price of labour?—The labour would be about the same because, owing to the trouble that I had with the Excise officers frightening me, with all the things I had to do and the orders I had to obey, I partly neglected my crop.

312. These officers did not do any of the harrowing or weeding for you?—No, they did the frightening.

313. Deputy M. Doyle.—Did you raise your own plants?—I raised some of them.

314. Had you glass?—Being a gardener I was working with a lady in the locality and I had a chance of raising under glass.

315. How much of the money which you got for your two drills of tobacco was bonus?—I could not say.

316. Who took the crop from you?— The rehandler.

317. He paid you that money?—Yes.

318. Deputy Sears.—How much per lb. did that come to?—About 1/6 per lb.

319. Deputy M. Doyle.—You have not sold the 1924 crop yet?—No.

320. You did not sow any last year?— No. The land on which I grew tobacco was untenanted land and we got it until such time as the Commissioners would take it over. I understand that they have taken it over so I had not a chance of growing any more.

321. Your chief point of view in tobacco-growing is that it absorbs all the labour on uneconomic holdings and leaves the market free to the labourers alone? —Yes. The small growers are able to live on their little farms with the aid of tobacco.

322. It lessens the dole, so to speak?— It does, indeed. Another matter is that the crops which precede and succeed the tobacco crop will absorb adult labour, as fresh ground has to be broken to make the tobacco crop successful. Corn, for instance, can be grown and adult labour will benefit.

Mr. Ml. Keelan, called and examined.

323. Chairman.—Are you still growing tobacco?—Yes.

324. How much did you grow last year?—Something over half a statute acre. We are only nibbling at it.

325. What was the last crop you sold? —I sold the 1922 and the 1923 crops at the same time.

326. How much did you get for those years?—In 1923 I got 1/8½d. for the first leaf and 1/1 for the second. The average I think was about 1/7 or 1/8.

327. Do you remember how many lbs. there were for 1923?—640 lbs. and the area was 3,288 yds.

328. Deputy M. Doyle.—Was that your weight to the rehandler, or was it the cured weight?—The cured weight.

329. The rehandler did not turn out that much cured tobacco?—Certainly.

330. There must have been some percentage of moisture in the tobacco when you sent it to the rehandler?—Yes.

334. You only gave 640 lbs. of your weight to the rehandler?—I got paid on that.

335. What did that work out at when cured?—It is cured now.

336. It is not fully cured?—Yes.

337. Are you capable of fully curing your tobacco?—No. These are the returns I was paid on.

338. The rehandler paid you on that? —Yes, the rough weight would be about one-third more.

339. Chairman.—Have you the amount for 1922?—It was about 706 lbs. There were four different grades. The area was 4,434 yards.

340. Did you keep accounts as to what it cost per acre?—No. I never kept accounts, except an entry. I could not keep accounts, as the way I worked was that I would go out in the morning, do something at tobacco, and then turn to something else.

341. Deputy M. Doyle.—Were you not compelled to keep accounts?—No.

342. Chairman.—How long have you had experience of tobacco-growing?— Twelve years.

343. Deputy Mulvany.—Then you had experience of growing outside this country?—Yes; I saw a good deal of tobacco grown, not in half-acre crops, but in thousands of acres.

344. I think that what the Committee would like to hear from you is your opinion as regards tobacco-growing as a small farm crop?—I would safely say on my oath that if it were not for tobacco growing I would be on the road to-day— if it were not for the sale of those two crops.

345. Under present conditions, with existing regulations, tobacco-growing cannot be carried out very successfully? —It is impossible to carry it out under present conditions, because the three largest influences in the State are working against us, namely, the manufacturers, the Excise Department, and the Government.

346. Is our land as suitable as that in which you saw thousands of acres grown? —That was in Kentucky and Virginia. I left the country at sixteen years of age and was travelling for twenty years.

346a. Were you engaged in growing tobacco out there?—No, but I saw what the crop did throughout the country. Those States are really built on tobacco.

347. Does the quality of Irish-grown tobacco compare favourably with that grown in other countries?—I smoked the raw leaf in the States, and it burned my tongue. I smoked my own raw leaf at home, and I found that both were just as hot. It is not a question of the tobacco, but of the flavour which the manufacturer puts into it. If you cured a cabbage leaf or a dock leaf in the same way as tobacco is cured and flavoured, I will bet you that you could use 50 per cent. of it.

348. Deputy Beamish.—How do you account for the fact that there has been an enormous decrease in the usage of local tobacco by the consumer here, as against Virginia leaf; if a man is a true Irishman, why would he not smoke his own tobacco in, at least, equal quantities to that of foreign tobacco?—Because the manufacturers would not give it to him to smoke. We smoked it while we had our own factory. It was all smoked.

349. It was all smoked?—Well, a considerable amount of it was manufactured by the Irish Tobacco Company.

350. Your argument, then, is that the manufacturers killed the trade in Ireland, and not the consumer?—Undoubtedly. That is an undoubted fact, because they would not manufacture it.

Deputy Mulvany.

351. I think you stated that the tobacco manufacturers are practically boy-cotting Irish-grown tobacco?—Well, I gave conclusive proof of that in evidence I sent forward. I think it is before the Committee now. There is hardly any necessity for me to go through it. But I will state further that about a year ago I questioned a local trader about this matter. We were talking about tobacco and about what he had for selling it. We figured it out at 1/4 a pound, or a penny an ounce, for handling it. I would be only too glad if I had 1/4 a pound nett profit for growing it—from the seedbed to the factory. Then he had a regular trade discount for selling it. Along with that he had a private bonus per pound from a certain manufacturer to push his interests. That bonus amounted to five per cent. on his nett sales. It is pretty hard for Irish manufacturers to compete with that.

Deputy Beamish.

352. But on the whole does not the manufacturer in Ireland buy Irish tobacco rather cheaper than other tobacco? Is that a fact—yes or no? Does he not get it rather cheaper than foreign tobacco? —The fact of it is that he does not buy it at all.

353. But he could buy it cheaper if he did buy it. Is that not right? There would be a greater profit for him if he used it? Did you ever find a business man who, if he could get a cheaper article equally as good as a dearer one, would not sell it? I think your argument is fallacious?—There is another way to look at that. For instance, we sold the manufacturer the 1922 crop. We practically gave it to him. Well, if we gave him another crop there would be a cry that he should put a cheaper blend of tobacco on the market. They do not intend to do that. They will give nothing to the consumer; they will not give a cheap ounce to the consumer.

Deputy M. Doyle.

354. I suppose the quality of your tobacco was good?—Well, I am smoking it this ten years and I am alive yet.

355. I mean, it was good to manufacture. Do you grow a large proportion of leaf in yours?—Well, it generally ran to about one-third leaf. That would be fit to pack the other two-thirds. If you get one-third leaf in any crop I think you have sufficient, and as far as that goes, the lug is just as good as the leaf.

356. It will not make the price?—You will only use two or three leaves in two or three ounces of tobacco.

The Witness withdrew.

Mr. Bernard Anderson, called and examined.

Chairman.

357. Are you still growing tobacco, Mr. Anderson?—Yes.

358. How much did you grow last year?—Two roods statute.

359. You have kept accounts, have you not?—Yes.

360. I suppose the last crop you sold was the 1922?—1923.

361. How much did you grow then and what was the price you got?—I grew 4,512 square yards.

362. And how many lbs. did you get out of that?—526 lbs.

363. Is that cured?—Yes, packed.

364. And you got for that?— £23 3s. 10d.

365. Was there any deduction?—No.

366. That was the full amount you got?—Yes, that was the full amount.

367. Do you know what it cost you to produce that?—The total cost was £29 10s. 7d. The labour was £19 16s. 6d. and the other cost £9 14s. 1d. was for material dues and manure.

368. Deputy M. Doyle.—£29 10s. 7d. was the total for labour and materials? —Yes.

Chairman.

369. That was about £6 loss if you got £23 for the crop?—Yes.

370. Could you give us the figures for last year?—Yes, Sir. In 1925 the total labour was £8 15s. 3d. and materials £8 1s. 4d.

371. And what was the crop—how many lbs.?—I do not know. I did not get the return for 1925 yet.

372. Deputy M. Doyle.—Do you anticipate that it will be as large as the 1923 crop?—Yes, I think it will be as large.

373. Deputy Cole.—Have you sold it yet?—It is not sold yet.

374. Did you do the labour all yourself?—Not altogether.

375. How many paid hands would you have?—I did about half the labour.

376. How do you estimate the amount of labour?—On the actual time worked.

Deputy Beamish.

377. You did not charge for your own labour?—Yes, I charge it all.

378. You pay full wages?—Yes. I send weekly reports to the Department.

379. Are these returns made up from the weekly reports you make?—Yes.

Deputy M. Doyle.

380-381. The £29 10s. 7d. is counting your own labour?—Yes.

382. What per hour do you charge for labour?—At present it is five and one-third pence per hour.

383. Deputy Beamish.—For an eight hours day?—For a nine hours day.

Deputy Cole.

384. Considering that you lost £6 in 1923, what encouraged you to put in the 1924 crop?—Well, in hopes.

385. What were your expectations when you put down the 1924 crop, considering you lost £6 on the 1923?—Well, in the first place, that I would have a better crop.

386. But you would not have a better crop considering the summer. Do you think you had a better crop?—Yes. It was not an average crop.

387. The 1923 crop?—Yes, on my land.

388. Deputy Mulvany.—What time did you sell the 1923 crop?—I cannot recollect.

389. Would it be 1924 or 1925?—I cannot tell that.

390. Deputy Mulvany.—Had you the 1924 crop planted before you got sale for the 1923 crop?—I am not certain, but I think I had.

391. Chairman.—Did you carry out all the regulations of the Excise people and of the Department’s expert?—Yes.

392. Deputy M. Doyle.—The cost of production in the year 1925 seems to have been much lower with you than in 1923. What was the total cost of production with you in 1925?—It was £16 16s. 7d., and for 1923 it was £29 10s.

Deputy Cole.—But the cost of the material is included in the latter figure.

Deputy M. Doyle.—I imagine the cost is included in the other one, too.

Witness.—I would like to point out that in 1923 I had 4,512 square yards under cultivation. That is only ten perches less than an acre, while in 1925 I had only two roods.

393. Deputy M. Doyle.—That explains the difference. How many lbs. did you get in the year 1923?—526. I do not know yet what the figure will be for 1925.

394. I suggest that the yield was rather small for the area you had planted in 1923?—It was not an average crop that year.

395. When you say materials, what do you include?—Artificial manures, farmyard manure, fuel for curing, twine, rent and taxes.

396. How do you cure it?—At timber fires. It takes about eleven weeks to cure it.

397. Is not that a rather long period to have it curing?—The weather conditions were very bad at the time, and that was why it took that length. I had to keep fires all the time.

398. Did you ever cure it in a less period than eleven weeks?—I did, in nine and ten weeks.

This concluded the witness’s examination and he withdrew.

The Committee adjourned to Thursday, March 18th, 1926, at 11 a.m.