GALVANISED CORRUGATED IRON

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 36, 11 August 1934, Page 8

GALVANISED CORRUGATED IRON

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Wo enclose herewith copy of a letter wo have this day addressed to Mr. A. E. Mander, of the New*, Zealand Manufacturers' Federation, Wellington, relative to the controversy in which he is at,present engaged with Mr. Poison on the subject of galvanised corrugated iron. Wo will much appreciate it if you will kindly give this publicity.— We are, etc.,

JOHN LYSAGHT, LIMITED. H. J. BUCK

Tlic following is the letter referred to:—"Our attention has been directed to your letters appearing recently in the 'Evening Post.' As you aro aware, wo aro a British firm which did not tender any evidence of any kind .to the Tariff Commission regarding any of our products, but we have been consulted by different authorities in their checking up of data supplied by you to the Commission. Generally ? we would like you to know that we cannot understand why you havo distorted dates, facts, and statistics as presented by you in your statements. Your case was surely not as bad as all that.

"In one of your letters in' :-the 'Evening Post,' you made the statement that tho New- Zealand industry producing corrugated iron was protected by a small dv y prior to 1928. You state that in 1928 that duty was abolished and the New Zealand industry was wiped out, presumably the' object being to allow the public to purchase cheaper imported iron. You then go on to infer that the effect of that wiping out was such that the price of galvanised iron was immediately increased to the consumer. When that industry was wiped out in 1928, wo were the largest producers, in New Zealand as regards tonnage. ' "We had provided buildings in Auckland, Wellington, Christehuren, Dunedin, and Invercargill, and installed plants, which Were rendered nnnenessary through tho abolition' of tho tariff. Buildings were rendered •ineffective, plants w^ro immediately laid idle, and the employees were disenaTged, and then our prices were reduced* in New Zealand £2 per ton, which was the amount of the duty per ton remitted. This fact alone clearly shows the wrong basis of the whole of your arguments. We havo tried to put you right in matters of quality, but you choose to disbelieve our statements because they do not suit your propaganda. Your disbelief cannot controvert facts. Your distortions aro so apparent to us that we want to endeavour to bring you back into tho right path, hence this friendly note. "Wo know our trade and all that pertains thereto, and we are enclosing a copy of this letter to the editor of the 'Evening Post,' asking him to give it the same publicity as he has given your statements, which are apt to mislead those who do not understand tho true position."