DRAINAGE BOARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5953, 25 March 1880, Page 5

DRAINAGE BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Many of your readers will learh with regret that the Drainage Board have accepted the tender of Mr 0. w.Turner for the supply of pipes required for the drainage wpiks. xh« value amounts to about £BOOO, .and Mr Turner’s offer of Is Id per foot for 9in pipes was ’accepted, as against Messrs Austin and Kirk’s offer of la 2Jd for the local mannfacthre. The tendering was perfectly fair but there is no doubt the specifications were drawn with' the direct object of hampering the local makers, and with a view of playing into the hands of the importer. The Bond’s engineer has apparently a string prejudice against anything Colonial, and the Board, In spite of any protestation to the contrary, seem to share in his prejudices. One of the conditions of the specification was that no should be delivered for nine mbntnsv This meant a large outlay of capital on the part of lodkl makers, and suited the importer well. The Board hare effected an apparent saving of £BO3. I say apparent, as this will depend a good deal on the way it is intended to use the pipes. There is nothing to prevent Mr Turner delivering ail the quantity at the expiration of nine months, and as it is not intended to use the lot at onoe, there will be a considerable loss of interest. Further, is it not a positive duty on the part of the Board to encourage the production of an article that will be probably required by them for many years to come? '

Surely it is necessary to afford all the employment possible during the next few months, and it does grieve one to know that through the short-sighted policy of the Drainage Board, an opportunity has been lost of famishing employment to, say 110 men,, for six months, or a living to at least 450 souls. One hears a good deal about the selfishness of “protection,” but in this particular case the boot seems to me to be on the other leg. Had a duty of ten per cent been imposed last session, as recommended to the Tariff Committee, the Board would probably have taken the local make ? and should the Parliament next session impose this duty, the apparent gain will have been nearly all lost. No one, of course, blames Mr Tamer, as it is his business to impirfc, regardless of the consequences, but what about the sham patriotism of some members of the Board who have stated their desire to encourage the local makers, even though at an increased coat of 10 per cent. In this instance the difference is 11 per cent. Do they draw a line at one percent?—l am, &0., VINDEX.