CHAIN PHARMACIES

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19890, 20 May 1936, Page 8

CHAIN PHARMACIES

CASE OF BOOTS LIMITED. PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION. THE POLICY OF THE COMPANY. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Evidence on behalf of Boots Limited, was given to-day at the resumed hearing of the petition for the exclusion of chain store pharmacies by the Industries and Commerce committee of the House of Representatives. Medical Association’s Attitude. Mr C. L. Saul produced a letter from Dr- Anson, chairman of the British Medical Association of New Zealand, in which Dr. Anson, referring to a letter previously written by him, and which was the basis of a statement on behalf of the pharmaceutical chemists, that they had the support of the association, said it was merely intended to convey the fact that the executive of the Association had no complaints from its members as to the efficiency of the present pharmaceutical service of the Dominion to the medical profession, and was definitely not intended to suggest that the British Medical Association was giving any support, one way or the other, in the present controversy. The letter added: "The matter is not one within our province, and as such has not come before our members. Y'ou have my authority to produce this letter at the committee of inquiry.”

Witness said he iiad been employed by Boots Limited for 16 years. No parallel could be drawn between the company’s shops in England and the drug stores of America. It would be definitely shown that it was the company’s intention to stock only normal chemists’ merchandise in New Zealand. His company took the view that lower prices brought a commodity within the reach of an increased number of customers, thereby enlarging the turnover of chemists’ commodities generally, to the advantage of the public and of the trade itself. There, he suggested, was the reason that the private chemists of Great Britain were prospering in spite of Boots’ competition, while private chemists in New Zealand were in the unenviable position revealed by Mr Hesiop’s figures. Private chemists in England had been compelled to keep prices at a reasonable level, profiting by the increased turnover. No Sudden DevelopmentWitness also indicated that his board’s policy would be one of gradual and not sudden development on the basis of suitable businesses being offered them for purchase. He was authorised by Lord Trent to say that when the company was in a position to justify, by actual trading figures, any invitation to capital subscription it would give l'avouraole consideration to an issue open to the New Zealand public. Mr D. S. Henderson gave figures relating to the company's business here, property, stock, wages, prices, etc. Wellington chemists, he said, would only be affected to the extent of one prescription per diem. NAVAL TREATY. RATIFIED BY AMERICA. FAINT PRAISE BY SUPPORTERS. ATTITUDE TO BRITAIN’S EXPANSIO United Press Assn.—Elec. Tel. Copyright. NEW YORK, May 18. The Washington correspondent of the New York Times says: Adopting the philosophy that half a loaf is better than no bread, the Senate to-day ratified the London Naval Treaty without a dissenting vote.. The debate was limited principally to faint praise jof the treaty by its supporters. Mr W. H. King (Democrat —Utah) uttered the only outspoken objection to it. lie held that the agreement would tie the hands ol' the two nations whicn desired peace—Britain and the United Stales- “ Unless we have Japan, Italy and Germany parties to this treaty," said Mr King, “ we shall be placing ourselves and Britain at a disadvantage. The treaty is not founded on a proper recognition of the rights this country and of Britain." Mr J. T. Robinson . Democrat— Arkansas) said there were more armed men on earth now than in 1914. lie expressed regret that the treaty contained no provision for quantitative limitations. Exceeding the Limits. Another message from Washington says it is indicated by the State Department that it will not object to Britain increasing her destroyer tonnage or shifting her tonnage in the cruiser classes. Britain’s formal notification of her intention to exceed the London treaty limits lias been received by mail from London. The Secretary of State, Mr Cordell Hull, has not replied to the Note yet, but the feeling is understood to be that Britain has a clear legal right to build more cruisers and destroyers if she believes her position is endangered by competitive building. It is assumed in Washington that technical I steps to bring the "escalator” clause j into operation probably will be taken Iby Britain after the position of the | United States and Japan has been oil! cia.'ly determined.