MARKET-GARDENERS v. AUCTIONEERS.

Otaki Mail, 21 May 1923, Page 3

MARKET-GARDENERS v. AUCTIONEERS.

To tlio Editor. Sir, —In reply to the article inserted in your issue of the ISth inst., re the ' trouble between tho combined fruit and vegetable auctioneers of Wellington and the growers: Mr Press, I consider, makes capital out of the fact that the poor salesman in Wellington has to bear the whole of the cost of depreciation on sacks This is, of course, the hub of the whole trouble, and had tho auctioneers , taken the trouble to acquaint the growers of their enormous loss annually, in a courteous letter, and inviting the growers to make some suggestions with a view to spreading the loss over all concerned, it would have been quite on the cards that the affair would have been settled with satisfaction to all. Mr Press did not give us this chance, but on the other hand, assuming the role of dictatorship, and secure in the thought that might is right, sent us this curt notice six days before it was to como into operation: “On and after Ist May, 1923, all vegetables and potatoes offered for sale will be sold, containers free;” also “That a commission of 124 per cent, will be charged on vegetables offered for sale and not packed in containers.” Please note the penalty, if wo dared to evade the decision arrived at by the auctioneers combine. One begins to think that we are back in the good old days when the workers on the land were compelled to doff their hats to any person that wore a fairly decent suit of clothing. Mr Press thought that a little discontent would be stirred up for a short while, but that the man on tho land would eventually shoulder this additional burden; the same as be has shouldered the increases in commission, that he has been called upon to bear every two or three years. Mr Press and’his combine forgot the old adage of the last straw, and now he is suffering from it, but why squeal, Mr Press.’ How keenly the growers feel this latest imposition may be judged from the fact that every grower supplying the Wellington market has pledged himself to an independent auctioneer for a period, and has cheerfully paid a levy for expenses. A representative of the combine was in Otaki cm Friday and Saturday last, trying to recover some of their lost trade, and in conversation with rnrself on Saturday morning informed’me that Thompson Bros, had not earned enough from commission this year to pay the wages incurred. It may’interest the general public to know that, this poor suffering combine is erecting, next to the old vegetal) o market in Courtenay Place, a building costing somewhere in the neighbourhood of £30,000. This the combine would have us believe is being paid for out of their losses. Mr Press states in his article that the loss on sacks and cases, spread over a number, would not be a burden to each individual producer. Can Mr Press explain this: —For the rear ending February 28th, 1923. I used i 'on my gardens 1800 sacks and nOU

cases. . ISOO Sacks at 4d, plus 6s perJ'J to. freight and cartage £ 3o 8 t 500 Cases at 4d, plus 12s Sd per 100_for freight and cartage • ••■ £U

Total £4.6 13 0 In addition to this the producer never receives cases with lids so he is compelled to break up one third to provide lids for the other two thirds, so in realitv the producer pars 7d for each case he sends a*vay, and not, a- hit Press tvould have the public believe, 4dAi r Press also states that bujer= vn 1-dd higher for produce when they know that thev are getting the container. free . This is a ridiculous statement. The market depends on the supply an demand and I venture to state that not one barer in Wellington would git e consideration to the faet. If «bba«W can be secured for Is per sack I d« not think that there is one buyer who wouU offer another 4d for the sack to help fhc poor producers. He states that the combine is prepared to supply sack and cases at the' old price of id, but he does not say for how long. It is more than probable that the. price would advance to 6d in a couple of months, and after another period to Sd, and so on. In conclusion, Mr Editor, the growers know full well that had they accepted the combine’s decision, nest year would have seen, another increase in the sales commission, and possibly an increase is the handling .charges. Sincerely thanking you, -Sir, for space and couxtesv estendt-d. —Yours, etc., A. E. WALLINOTOE-