SUGAR STOCKS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14830, 22 November 1913, Page 5

SUGAR STOCKS.

— # — TO TOTS KDITOR OF "THE TRSSe." Sir, —Mr Fairbairn's letter in your issue of yesterday is a novel, way of dealing with the position. On the 14th inst. ho accepted my challenge by omitting one-third of it, and named seven other matters which he would prove "in addition." On the 17th inst. I dealt fully with each of these, and showed that aU but two of them (and these were completely covered by my offer of that date) were either irrelevant or undisputed. Mr Fairbairn thus sets up a number of bogeys, and with the assistance of Messrs Hight and Jameson has knocked them down wiih considerable show of force. This is sheer bluff, and does not in the slightest assist to nrovo whether the merchants have injured the public. There is nothiug to sho.w in what way the points were submitted to Messrs Hight and Jameson, and I could till columns with the same sort of stuif. The report has some extraordinary features, and condemns itself from iirst to last. To take it as it stands. Paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8. The investigators say. "These relate to the stocks of sujar. We are of opinion that your hgures are substantially correct." Surely an "opinion in a matter of figures which can only be proved by figures is of no more value than is given to it by the experience of the persons expressing it. I would respectfully submit that my opinions on the matter of sugar stocks exceeds in value that of either or theso gentlemen just as their opinion on matters ot accountancy and political economy exceeds mine on those subjects. Paragraph 5. Mr Fairbairn undertook to prove, '"That the published prion lists of merchants, members of tho sugar ring, show much higher net proI fits than o per cent." The investigators finding is: "Tho published price list submitted to us by you proves your statement that much higher net profits than 5 per cent, have been received by a member of the Merchants' Association." Mr Fairbairn did not say "a member of the Merchants' Association." He said, "members of tho sugar ring," and, therefore, did not prove his statement. Such a finding as this is condemned on tho face of it. It indicates careless work, and is open to very severe criticism. Messrs Hight and Jameson are apparently not aware that Sugar Ring and Merchants' Association did not mean the same thing. Firms were members of the sugar ring without being members of the Merchants' Association. These gentlemen are probably hazy as to the terms wholesale merchants, distributing merchants, Merchants' Association, and sugar rings (tlie merchants ring and Messrs Fairbnirn. Wright and Company's ring), and small blame to them if they are, hut they should be careful' in their use of the terms. Mr Fairbairn, in his letter of November Bth, says ho does not know the difference between distributing merchants and retailers, so he was obviously but a poor guiae for them. Paragraph 3—ln proof of what Ins charges of two years ago were, Mr Fairbairn apparently only submitted to the investigators his letter, of September 1911, to the Minister of Commerce. But on October 2nd, 1911, ue also made charges in a long letter to the Attorney-General. Why was this letter not submitted? W*~ did Messrs Hight and Jameson not ask for it and see that they got it? They say ■ they have given the matter very careful consideration, yet my letter • of 17th inst. (published a.day prior to the date of thoir report) draws particular attention to the fact that —r Fairbairn's charges were contained in two letters. Paragraphs 4, 9. and 10 These cqyer the real point at issue (the question of injury to the public), and, in adoition to matters of accountancy); and political economy, involve questions which .can only .be decided by commercial men of wide experience, such asl have named, as a committee of investigation. I have shown in a previous letter that the gross profit the merctiants were making on sugar under the arrangement oy which they were convicted, was one penny on every 161b. A household using 41b weekly would pay toll to the merchants (after expenses were paid) of about 2s Der annum. By their finding Messrs Hight and Jameson say this inflicted a real injury upon the public. To do the public jnstice, -aey have never said so, and are not likely to. The whole mntter at issue is whether the merchants have exploited'the. pub-' lie in any real sense. Mr Fairbairn has for three years past said in the most public manner possible that they have. I have offered him the opportunity of proving this before a committee of gentlemen to whom he cannot take the slightest exception. The fact that some of them are connected with "trade" is not thp least of *\heir qualifications—Mr Fairbairn to the contrary, notwithstanding. I renew that offer, in the hope that Mr Fairbairn will see that he ha>. come to fho point when ,he must deal with it. If he considers that +>he points named in that offer do not form a complete basis for deciding whether the merchants have really injured the public, I will leave it to ++>& committee named fr> alter the pc-TTts in any way they think necessary. Ts there pnythirg more I can.-do to imiiife Mr Fairbairn to face the issue fairW and «qi">relv and settle it once and for all? —Yours, etc.. TNO. I. ROYDS. Christchurch, November-21.