The Taranaki Herald. (DAILY EVENING.) THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1913. DEFENCE SUPPLIES.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 144147, 17 July 1913, Page 2

The Taranaki Herald. (DAILY EVENING.) THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1913. DEFENCE SUPPLIES.

•In tho House of Representatives last week tho member for Auckland East, Mr. Myers, asked tho Minister for Defence whether tho Defence Department is supposed to give preference to New Zealand manufactures when purchasing leather goods and other equipment for tho Territorial forces. Mr. Allen replied that the department does give such preference, and Mr. Myers thereupon asked why tenders sent in by Auckland firms for various articles of Territorial equipment last January had received no attention. To this Mr. Allen explained that the department had merely obtained quotations and that so far no requisition for the articles in question had been sent in by the local military authorities. The Auckland Star, however, is not satisfied and explains that the local saddlery firm were asked to quote for a large amount of equipment for the Territorials, the total value of which would probably have meant something between £35,000 and £40,000 to the saddlery trade. Since then the saddlers have heard nothing further of the matter, but it transpires, according to the Star, that the saddlery and harness required for the new four-gun battery just procured for Auckland have all been imported from England, though there is every reason to believe that these goods could have been turned out by the local trade in a perfectly satisfactory way, and the Saddlers’ Union is apprehensive lest the department should be contemplating a similar course in regard’ to the whole Territorial equipment. Our contemporary proceeds to argue that since the State has inaugurated a system of compulsory training which involves certain sacrifices on the part of all concerned, it is therefore only fair that every effort should be made by the department to put work in the way of the wage-earners who are compelled to lose time and money in camping and drilling. For the sake of argument we will grant that this is fair, but it does not follow that the saddlers of Auckland should have the work put in their way to the exclusion, say, of the farmers’ sons and employees. Our contemporary may reply to this that the latter cannot make saddlery, leggings, belts, etc. No, hut they can produce something else which will buy cheaper and possibly more suitable saddlery, etc., than the Auckland saddlers can produce. The Defence Department, in spending public money—not Auckland money—should consider first, last, and all the time where and how it can get the best value for that money. The Star believes that Auckland manufacturers are able to provide thoroughly' satisfactory equipment of the kind needed, except in a few minor details, and holds that the question of price should not be allowed to stand in the way unless it becomes a serious obstacle. We should like to know what would be regarded as “a serious obstacle.” If the local price was double that of the imported articles, would that be a serious obstacle? Most people would regard it so in their own personal dealings, and we will venture to say that the Star, in its own purchases of supplies of paper, etc., goes for what appears to give the best value for its money, quite regardless of where it is manufactured—in the Dominion, in England, in Canada, or elsewhere. The State, which is only an aggregation of individuals, should do the same, for the good and sufficient reason that it is in the best interests of the whole community to do so. Supposing that the equipment referred to involved an expenditure of i4Q,000 by -the Defence De--

par talent, at Auckland prices. Were the order placed in Auckland the State would have to pay the £40,000, hut if the goods were imported they might not only be thoroughly satisfactory even in the “few minor details,” hut they might cost only £35,000. The Star may say that in the latter case the £35,000 would he sent out of the Dominion instead of going into the pockets of the Auckland saddlers. That is just where it is mistaken. Instead of the £-35,000 being sent away in money to pay for the imported goods it would go into the pockets of the dairy farmers and other producers for butter, cheese, wool, frozen meat, or other stuff exported to .exchange for imports. Further than that, this butter, etc., would cost the farmers perhaps no more than £-30,000 to produce, so that the community as a whole would be paying £30,000 for the equipment instead of £40,000. We are prepared to grant that if the Auckland saddlers can supply as good an article at the same price as imported goods they should have the order, but there is no reason at all why they should receive a penny more, or even, the same price for an inferior article. The community as a whole has a greater claim to consideration than any section of it, whether Auckland saddlers or anyone else.