1.-12

359

SEED TRADE Letter from Messrs. Arthur Yates and Co. (Limited), Seed and Manure Merchants, Auckland. The Chairman, Industries Committee, Wellington. Dear Sir, — We regret that when your Committee sat in Auckland we had not been prepared to put before you our views on different matters concerning our trade. (1.) We spent about £1,000 per year on catalogues, the printing of which is distributed among different printing firms in Auckland. Postage on these catalogues runs into, say, £100. The Customs Tariff imposes a duty of 3d. per pound on catalogues issued by firms in New Zealand if printed outside the Dominion. This in our case would run into fd. per copy. Firms in other countries send their catalogues free of duty (see item 154 of Customs Tariff) direct to the retail customer. This is a matter which concerns every trade in the Dominion, and we would ask your support to have a duty placed on all catalogues entering this country. (2.) We would ask to have a duty placed on all retail packets of vegetable and flower seeds. We would point out that we, and others, are growers of seeds as well as importers; wo give work directly and indirectly to hundreds in growing, cleaning, and packing seeds. The stationery, mostly imported, pays a duty of 3d. per pound if printed, or 20 per cent, if imprinted. The seedsmen of other countries can send their packets, when filled with seeds, either direct to a customer or through agents free of duty, and wo know that some thousands of filled packets are imported yearly. (3.) We handle large quantities of bird-seed, the bulk of which is grown in foreign countries. We pay 30 per cent, duty, and then have to clean, mix, and pack it, giving employment to a number of hands. But we have to compete with the imported article, ready mixed in cartons or bags, on which a duty of only 20 per cent, has to be paid. This has to provide for 25 per cent, of British material and labour, and is easily got over by increasing one of the only two items of British-grown seed sufficient to comply with the Act. In none of the cases mentioned in the foregoing have the proprietors an interest in this country by which they would contribute to the funds of the Dominion. Now the war is over we anticipate keen competition by other countries, and after years spent in building up an industry we should receive encouragement, and not be handicapped in the ways we have pointed out. Trusting to have the support of your Committee, We have, (fee, For and on behalf of Arthur Yates and Co. (Limited), Auckland, 9th May, 1919. E. Yates, Governing Director. HOLLOW BUILDING-BLOCKS. Letter from Messrs. R, O. Clark (Limited), Drain, Pipe, Brick, and Tile Makers, Auckland. The Chairman, Industries Committee, House of Representatives, Wellington. Dear Sir, — I regret I was absent from Auckland wheii your Parliamentary Industries Committee sat there. My intention was to bring before you a very perfect hollow building brick or block, manufactured by R. O. Clark (Limited), Hobsonville. These, I consider, are the cheapest and most perfect building-material of a permanent nature manufactured in New Zealand. They have long since passed the experimental stage. Last year ten houses, for workers, were built at Matangi, near Hamilton, by the New Zealand Dairy Association (Limited), and several others at Matamata, and they were more than pleased with the results. At present they are being used in the erection of a large dried-milk factory at Waharoa, by the Waikato Co-operative Dairy Company (Limited). We are handicapped in the pushing of these in the country by what, I consider, is an unfair classification by the Railway Department, Bricks are classified in Q Class at 7s. 4d. per ton, say, to Frankton, while our building hollow bricks are classified in P Class at 9s. Bd. per ton, or 32| per cent, higher freight, thus placing us at a disadvantage. Our blocks have only been raised 10 per cent, during Hie past seven years, while bricks have risen over 30 pier cent, and timber about 40 per cent. The cost of laying our 18 in. by 9 in. by 6 in. hollow brick is much lower than brick, and what I respectfully ask is that the Government should try these on some of their workers' cottages, &c, and that we get sympathetic consideration from Government Departments, including the Railway Department, as I consider all consideration should be shown to any material likely to lessen cost of buildings for workers. At our works, Hobsonville, we can supply enough buildingblocks to erect a five-roomed house for about £56; freight would be extra. Houses erected of these would be perfectly sanitary, cheaper than first-class timber, dryer than concrete, and cheaper than brick, damp-proof, fire-proof, no borer, and practically no upkeep. In conclusion, let me say we are not asking for protection or Government assistance, but for a fair trial of our blocks by the Government, and that the Railway Department classify them in proper class, and not penalize a struggling local industry and retard the use in the country of a perfect building-material. I should be pleased to forward you a sample block if you so require. I have, (fee, Auckland, 9th May, 1919. Thomas Millar, Chairman.

Authority : Marcus F. Marks, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9l9,