KAPOK v. COTTON.
: Evidence was recently heard by the Australian Tariff Board in reference to kapok and cotton. Mr. Daniel Jones said that Javanese kapok was a. competitor with cotton lint, principally in upholstering and mattress, pillow, and quilt manufacture. He claimed that Queensland cotton should be substituted. Mr. A. J. Praeger, for the bedding-section of the Queensland Chamber of Manufactures, said the view of; most traders was that even if a duty was put on kapok it would still be used in preference to cotton. Officials of the Flour Mill Employees Union, however, have expressed the fear that steps taken by Queensland cotton growers to have'-a. prohibitive duty placed upon kapok with .the .idea of creating a home market for Australian cotton, if successful, would. result in retaliation by the Netherlands Government against Australian produce. As the Dutch East Indies was one of tho most valuable, markets for Australian flour, this commodity would come in for further duties.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19300405.2.97.3
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 81, 5 April 1930, Page 12
Word Count
159KAPOK v. COTTON. Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 81, 5 April 1930, Page 12
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.