TOWN v. COUNTRY TRADING

Ellesmere Guardian, Volume XXIV, Issue 4253, 9 March 1921, Page 3

TOWN v. COUNTRY TRADING

Sir, —After wading through "Progressive 'sMorig jaunt in this controversy Tone cannot help wondering how much he is getting for his effort, and who is paying him, or is he in reality a so-called "wholesaler" himself? His remarks, all so full of assurance, are so lop-sided that we can afford to smile at his bombastic effort on behalf of the city man. It is very evident he has no stake or financial interest in this district, or he would hot be so short-sighted as to believe that the country districts would be better without their towiiships. What utter nonsense. Of the city warehouse "Progressive '' says: "Its service the same to everyone.' Then why, may I ask, does the so-called "Wholesaler" offer special induce ments to Ellesmere people of 10 per cent, rail free, etc. This offer contradicts '-Progressive's" statement, does it not? Following the same subject, why does an alleged "Wholesaler" need to offer these extra inducements? I take it that they found their "wholesale" price list did not stagger the Ellesmere people as they expected. ■ They probably thought they were sending a bomb shell into the, backblocks, but the shell only proved a "dud" and the backblocks turned out to be just as live in the matter of prices as the city. Judging by "Progressive's " letter, I can easily visualise him as one of those patriotic individuals who badly needs a new pair of specs in order to view the world in a new light, but, for very cussedness, won't buy any until he can get German ones. In conclusion^ the Southbridge and Leeston business men will suit me.—l am, etc. COMMON SENSE.