THE FLAX BONUS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 42, 19 February 1930, Page 8

THE FLAX BONUS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Under the above heading ?in your issue of the 14th .'instant, you published the terms of the Governmeiit's offer, of a bonus of £10,000 for an improvement on the present process of preparation and manufacture of/New Zealand hemp. What a paternal Government we have to be sure —£10,000 is a lot of money, and the conditions are so simple and so helpful to the poor inventor, telling him just what he has got to do. Before he can apply for the bonus, he must have extracted the fibre by his process from not less than 500 tons of green leaf. The fibre so extracted must, have been graded by a Government grader, and not less than 90 vper cent, "good fair." That's not much of an improvement to- ask for, why, nearly 5 per cent, of the fibre extracted iv the ordinary way reaches that standard! The conditions do not say where the green leaf can be obtained from which it is considered possible to produce 00 per cent, of "good fair," but no doubt it can be obtained from St. Helena or some other equally accessible place. Now having obtained this wonderful leaf and produced "the 90 per cent, ot "good fair" and made his application for the bonus in proper form, all the inventor has to do is to convince a committee of tive (they might have called it a commission) that his process will produce:— (a) A greatly improved quality of fibre marketable afc a higher price. (b) A considerable greater quantity or strong white fibre per ton of green leal. (c) A substantial reduction iu^ the cost of'producing the fibre. That seems to be all! He has got to improve the quality (greatly), raise the price (don't they call that redundancy.'), get more fibre out of thegreen leaf, and make it white (which Nature failed to do), and reduce the coßt of .production . . . There's a lot left out, but I had better not mention it as they might gazette some additions to the conditions. Well,- now, if, on ©teaming* the application,, the committee considers it worthy of trial, it may demand such reasonable demonstrations as it thinks fit, at the-expense 6f the inventor; and the demonstrations arc to take place in New Zealand. No_ doubt this is only reasonable, but whf.t I would luce to know is: Will the leaf top fresh if it has to be imported from some favoured land where neither blight, nor grub nor wind doth despoil, and where "Flaxie never cuts too low? ~„,.,, ~ The committee being satisfied that all the above conditions have been well and truly complied with, in determining the amount of the bonus to be paid for any such process, due regard id to be had to the rate of any royalty required to be paid by the millers for the use of the process. Now I notice that only two of the committee are necessarily, flax millers,

but two out of five, no doubt, will be able.to see that? no greedy inventor charges the millers, by way of royalty, more than they wish to pay, and that no new invention makes ■their present mills a scrap head. If the bonus is to, be £10,000, I am a little puzzled over the clause, "in determining the amount of the bonus to b» paid," but no doubt that can be explained. The only thing that I am dubious abou* is whether an inventor who has complied with the requirementa as aforesaid would be bothered to submit his invention to the Commission. ]f I were. the lucky chap I wouldn't "call the Qud%u my aunt," bu^, would claim a more tangible relationship with Royalty—to the extent of, say, £DO,OOO a year. Now, Sir, I should like to'make just one little suggestion to the Government through the medium of your columns, and Unit is, that although a pat on the back per medium of a cheque for £10,000 might be acceptable to the successful inventor provided "royalty" was not mentioned, it would be far more humane to use tho money in assisting embryo inventors who have not "arrived," and consequently have not- the cash to *,ry out their ideas on a commercial scale. —I am, etc., ' . FLAXIE,