SALE OF FRUIT

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 28, 3 February 1932, Page 5

SALE OF FRUIT

THE OiTHER SH3&

:r'" ' (To the Editor.) . gir"—w« think'that it istinie that the . public of Wellington should know the tru« facts- of 'the- controversy -which is being etirred up by a few persons who_ represent the Wellington Ketail Fruit Trader* Association. ■ . , . . ■'.-.. This body may or may not be in existence as a registered company. We are inclined to v -thjrnk, however, that its financial members:, do not such a large body -a? the high-sounding; title \ would suggest.'';;;-V' . :--"\ ,: .;. The true fact.'of the matter is .that-a .: few shoipkeepers/feeling the stress of the times, are objecting to fair competition ■■> and are seeking to enlist the aid of the Wellington "City- Council in suppressing it. While it is-natural that shopkeepers " or anybody else'should endeavour to. -im- ■ prove Stheir position by every-.legitimate ; means .111 their power, and whilst it may. . be proper for them on occasion to do, so : by a well advertised deputation, we strongly resent' the imputation that -we; I as a body of British subjects, areVto-rbe j publicly branded ias Asiatics, which we understand has an. opprobrious sound to English ears, because in earning our living we necessarily serve the needs of people who but for the presence of out fruit stands would go;into the fruit,shops. We abide by the regulations ofthe City Council in the sale of our fruit. We pay rents ranging from £8 a week to '■£! 10s and averaging about £ii week. And we sell fruit to the public cheaper than the persons who are seeking to. drive us off the streets. If they succeed the public of Wellington will be the sufferers. 'They will have to "pay more for their fruit and we will haye to submit to whatever regulations.are made by the Wellington City Council^at the behest of a -few individuals. Such \ regulations, if : made, will do either one of two things,:, namely, we will remain in "business and have to increase our prices to meet ■ the cost,, if any, o£ obeying the regulations, or we will be unable to continue.": In either event riot only will we be penalised, but also the public as a body who must pa? .the price demanded of them ■by an uncompetitive system of sales. Our standard of living suits us. It may not suit our opponents. But, like them, we are subject in our homes to the same health and sanitary bylaws. If we choose to live in circumstances, enabling -us to live cheaper, that is the business • of, ourselves and many of our non14aiatic neighbours. But we wish strongly to emphasise and to assure the Wellington City Council and the public thafe any .profit we make is a fair. one and relatively to outlay, etc.,' at least no greater than our opponents. If they object to iiß why do they not object to the.BmaJler ■shopkeepers, who pay less rent and make smaller profits and whose, standard of :; living is therefore lower than their own? It is doubtful if any measures passed . by the Wellington City Council:, or anybody else can absolutely remove the chance of fruit becoming unhealthy and at the same time not interfere unduly with; the conduct of business. All;we can db'is to see that tha fruit, is. clean'to; the naked eye, and we say.that is.a reasonable standard of care. It is also very doubtful ■from the point-of view of the possibility of contagion if fruit in a shop window is 'any better situated than fruit a few yards away in a partially enclosed stall. The city air circulates about both and contains the same ingredients. ■ We must perforce submit to any ruling "of the City Council,'but we wish the public to know that our competition is,not unfair in any true- sense './of., the term, but 'has, if anything, the effect of keeping prices down to a reasonable level. If the City Council, after considering the Tnatter, decides at this late hour that the ■circumstances of sale from our stalls are unhealthy, we would welcome a ruling "requiring us to keep our fruit under glass. This would be a comparatively cheap precaution, and while we. are doubtful of the practical value of any precautions other \than keeping the fruit visibly clean we are anxious to allay any doubts the public 'might have on this head. • We are a law-abiding community who appreciate the benefits of British citizenship which we share in common with other subjects, and. w,e can. see no. reason either 'f.om the point'of view, of justice or'the "public interest why a ..few individuals •should seek to penalise us for their own 'benefit and to the detriment of the "public. KESHAVIiAL PATEL, For the Hindu stallmen,