Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PROFITEERING.

IS GOVERNMENT GUILTY? RAW SUGAR SAME PRICE AS REPINED. The statement made by the lion. E. P. Lee in answer to a question asked by Mr R. Masters, member for Stratford, in the blouse of Representatives on Friday relative to the priee of raw sugar, lias occasioned a considerable amount of controversy amongst merchants. Mr Masters asked if the Government had approved of (he recent rise in the price of raw sugar from £3O to £-17 10s per ton. In his reply the Hon, E. P. Lee stated that the Board of Trade was not putting any relined sugar on the market at present, as there was not enough of it. It was putting raw, or third-grade sugar, on the market at the prim; of relined sag a i —£l7 10s a ton —and the price to the consumer would be that of refined sugar. The reason was that the Government had been put to a good deal of expense in regard to sugar by ihe rise in wages, etc. When relined sugar was placed on the market again the price of raw sugar would be reduced. ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LAW. “It seems to meT said a merchant when interviewed by. a Press reporter, “that I lie Government imposes conditions upon the niefMiants of New Zealand which it docs not observe itself, hut deliberately breaks when it thinks tit to do so. The Government entered into a contract in regard to the supply of sugar, and prices for raw and refined were agreed upon. Under Government control the prices advanced —in fact, they made a big .jump—hut whether the rises were justified or not is immaterial to the present position. Prior to, and during the war. the principal grades of sugar used was No. 1 (large crystals), No. 1A (small crystals), and No. 2 ( so It white). No. 2 was in greatest demand. and to-day my linn received a small shipment, the price being £-11) IDs per ton. A large quantity of raw sugar was also received, and Ihe price charged is higher than that for No. 2 and the same as No. 1 relined quality. MAKING THE PUBLIC BAY.

“Now the position, as myself and fellow-merchants see it, is that the Government have been faced with a .-trike at the sugar works, a certain amount of expense lias been incurred thereby, and in order to meet it (he price of raw sugar is being charged for at a higher rate than No. 2 (refined) in order to meet the outlay. It a merchant were to adopt the same principle in order to meet his losses in trade lie would undoubtedly be proceeded against tor profiteering. To make my meaning more clear I will draw your attention to the fact 'that merchants have suffered loss through the trouble that has taken place on the waterfront. That loss lias to he met, and if the merchants decided to reimburse 1 homsolves by advancing the price of goods there would not only be a protest from one end of the Dominion to the other, hut they would he prosecuted for profiteering. The Government, however, is immune from a charge ot: profiteering, hut it should lie bound by its own laws. It is a ease of ‘do as 1 command you, and 1 will do as I think lit,’ ” concluded the merchant. RAW SUGAR. “Can you point to an instance where the Government has engaged in a commercial enterprise that the result has been satisfactory?” replied a wholesale dealer, when the subject of sugar control was under discussion. “Fancy a merchant informing a client that he must lake his chance of the weight of a package being as stated, while the price was fixed irrespective of the weight of the contents. That was precisely v,hat the Government did in respect of raw sugar. The sugar was sold at so much a hag, and a note was placed on the invoice that a; hag contained 1(50 lb., more or less. Of course, it is generally found to contain less, as may be expected, and the retailer is the sufferer."’ “Why is the sugar not sold at so much per ton?” asked the reporter. The merchant replied that the only conclusion he could come to was that the sugar was passed on to the public in Ihe same packages as received from the Islands, and transhipped at Auckland. The public, he presumed, were pleased to be able to get any class of sugar, and did not care to make an outcry, hut the present position was a most unsatisfactory and —he contended — unfair one.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19201007.2.28

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2186, 7 October 1920, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
771

PROFITEERING. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2186, 7 October 1920, Page 4

PROFITEERING. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2186, 7 October 1920, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert