NO MORE “CHOCS.”

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 161, 2 December 1926, Page 1

NO MORE “CHOCS.”

SALE TO BE BARRED. At Morrinsville Bookstall. It has been decreed that shortly, with the new lease, travellers and the genei-al public will not be able to buy chocolates at the bookstall on the Morrinsville railway station. It is said that the object is to protect the refreshment rooms at Frankton. At these rooms chocolates are sold. So as to allow the Government a monopoly no “ chocs ” are to be sold at the Morrinsville bookstall. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that at ' the Frankton bookstall the sale of cigarettes as well as “ chocs ” is barred. But why should “ chocs ” be barred at the Morrinsville bookstall and cigarettes allowed ? Since the Frankton rooms sell both it would appear logical that to create the full monopoly the sale of both should be prohibited at Morrinsville and elsewhere. The fact remains that “ chocs ” are barred. So the traveller who forgets to purchase his stick or cake of chocolate at Frankton will have to wait until he gets past Morrinsville, assuming that other rooms along the line are allowed to sell “ chocs,” or to his destination before he can gratify his desire. And tire passenger who changes from the Thames to Rotorua trains, or vice versa, has to go without “ chocs ” or go up town and buy them. But is it that the Department believe that the chocolate seeking traveller will go to Frankton, swell the sales at the refreshment rooms, and then return ? “ Japhet in search of a father ” will be nothing to the change-train traveller in search of his chocolate.

Presumably the idea behind this monopolistic move is to swell the revenue of the Frankton refreshment rooms. Will it? It is said by those who know that the sale of chocolates is a very profitable portion of the turnover at a bookstall, and that if the sale is prohibited, the rental for the lease will fall. Is it going to he another case of gaining on the Frankton swings and losing on the Morrinsville roundabout ? Of course, the convenience of the travelling public does not count?