SUGAR STOCKS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14832, 25 November 1913, Page 3

SUGAR STOCKS.

TO THE EDITOR.OF "THE PRESS."

Sir, —Mr John I. Royds's latest explanation for his contemptible backdown from his own offer, is that "1 accepted his challenge by omitting onethird of it." This refers to my etatemena "that the quantity named by Mr Royds (300 to 400 tons) would represent approximately four months' supplies for sales from wholesale stocks m store." Now other issues that I did undertake to prove were (7th): "That the total consumption of sugar for household purposes excluding manufacturers, confectioners, brewers, etc.) in North Canterbury, is less than 400 tons per month," and (b&h), "That t-O bulk of the sugar arriving at the Port of Lyttelton is consigned to retailers direct, and that only a small P°rtion is stored by merchants in Christchurch." As Mr Royds has admitted that "7th-"and Bth are not disputed, it must be obvious that my estimate is correct; 20 per cent, is a liberal interpretation of "a small portion;" 20 per cent, of 400 tons per month would aggregate 320 tons for four months. This is another illustration of the silly quibbles Mr Royds uses in his clumsy attempt to delude the public. His statement to your reporter in regard to tlie quantity of sugar held by Christchurch members of the "Sugar Ring," has been proved to be false. He tries to find cover in his oftrepeated perversion that the "Sugar Ring" did not charge excessive profits to the public, considering the service rendered. For many years prior to 1911 a large number of retailers throughout the Dominion were buying direct from the Sugar Company on tho same terms and discounts as the merchants. It is definitely proved in evidence that it was the intention of tho "Sugar Ring" to compel the retailers to pay 5 per cent, more if they had succeeded in driving out competition. This is the service Mr Royds boasts of. Sales from merchants' stocks in store have always been on a different basis; the evidence shows that the gross profits fixed by the "Wellington Association were over 10 per cent. These are the facts, and the proofs are in my possession. I wish to make it quite clear that I have never disputed the merchants', rights to charge any price thoy like for sugar, or any other commodity, so long as they do not prevent other traders enjoying the same liberty.

It is well to remember that Mr Royds refused to give evidence beforo tho "Cost of Living Commission," and was in the Supreme Court. Wellington, last November, during the trial. I .gave evidence on oath, the substance of which -was that the Merchants' Association (the "Sugar Rine") had raised prices detrimental to the public interests, not only in respect to sugar, but also in numbers of other commodities ia everyday consumption. This evidence was not contradicted. Why did Mr Royds, a defendant in the proceedings, and charged with conspiracy, sit "in court and not dare to go into tho wit-ness-box and refute those charges if ho could ?

After withdrawing from his own challenge, he now seriously asks a committee of nine reputable citizens to sit in judgment on tho judges of New Zealand! I hardly think that any of the gentlemen he named wquld presume to place themselves in that position, but if any or all of them wish to compare the evidence and the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, with Mr Royds's perverted statements, I will be pleased to satisfy them.

Mr Royds's cynical reference to the onalifications of* Dr. Hisht and Mr "W. Jameson need not he taken seriously. People who know either of these gen-

tlemen will consider that Mr Royds is not competent to judge. My firm's charges against the Merchants' Association and the Colonial Sugar Company were made in the most open manner possible, in order to direct publio attention to the operations of "rings" and "combines" in New Zealand . Copies were sent to all members of Parliament and the Press. As they were the basis of the recent prosecution under the "Commercial Trusts Act," it is sheer impudence for Mr Royds to state that they aro not proved. The heavy penalties inflicted by the court, and tho definite pronouncements by the judges, are not to be brushed aside because Mr Royds tries to make the publice believe otherwise.

Mr Royds is very free with his offers to donate £100, which,' he states, "is his share of the plunder." I am in a position to prove that his share *>f tho plunder in the shape of discounts on sugar alone runs into many hundreds of pounds sterling. Yours, etc., ANDREW FATRBAIRN.

Christchurch, November 22nd, 1913