MR. ANDREW FAIRBAIRN AND THE COST OF LIVING COMMISSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 214, 6 September 1912, Page 2

MR. ANDREW FAIRBAIRN AND THE COST OF LIVING COMMISSION.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr. Louisson, in his letter published in your issue of 3rd inst., is as amusing as he is anxious for the public to believe Mr. Fairbaim "simple." First, take his excuses for Mr. Andrew Fairbairn, who "eat on the Commission against his own inclination because the Hon. T. Mackenzie considered that he should." Of course, the Hon. T. Mackenzie, having been persuaded by Mr. Fairbairn to prosecute the Merchants* Association, could do not less than think Mr. Fairbairn ought to establish his charges, and was not unwilling to give him an opportunity he would not otherwise have had of getting to know his competitor's business. The fact, nevertheless, remains that Mr. Fairbairn accepted a plate on the Commission, and, as has been pointed out by Mr. Beauchamp in Wellington, even went the length of cross-examining his own clerk. Now, did Mr. Fairbairn authorise or direct his own clerk's evidence? If not, who else could have done it? Now we have Mr Louisson "butting in" as a "friend" of Mr. Fairbairn. Why does not Mr. Louisson candidly tell the public that lie is a member of the firm of Fairbairn, Wright and Co., a co-direc-tor of Mr. Fairbairn and manager of the Auckland branch of the firm? What is his object in posing as a "personal friend only As to bad managemnt—for Mr. Louisson, as a business man, to suggest that the sixty odd wholesale houses doing business in the Dominion are " badly managed, and poorly organised internally" is ridiculous, not to say an impertinence on his port. With regard to " palatial warehouses," " fat directors," and profits generally, how does Mr. Louisson account for the fact that three prominent firms have recently withdrawn from the wholesale grocery trade? Surely he cannot accuse all three of inaptitude. Two of them were members of the Merchants' Association, the third followed Mr. Looiasons firm's methods none of them founa the business sufficiently profitable for them to continue it. One positive fact like this should carry more weight than all Mr. Fairbairn's and Mr. Louisaon'a assertions regarding excessive profits. Mr. Louisson's illustrations as to excessive profits are singularly unfortunate. At least 60 per cent of the storekeepers and grocers do not draw 10 cwt. parcels of sugar, and the line cannot, therefore, be handled as suggested by Mr. Louisson. As to infants' food, he must have forgotten that prior to the manufacturers raising their price by 1/ per doz. (to which, by the way, Mr. Lonisson makes no reference), they fixed the selling price to the retail trade after proof that the line could not be profitably handled on the prices then obtaining. The members of the Merchants' Association do not mind facts being stated for the information of the public, but they take strong exception to half truths and misleading statements calculated to wrongly prejudice public opinion against them.— am, etc., ARTHUR B. ROBERTON.