SUGAR STOCKS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14821, 12 November 1913, Page 6

SUGAR STOCKS.

•♦- TO THE ZDITOIt 01" "TUB 7XUMII." Sir,—ln to-duy'a "Prose" Mr Roydu substitutes "all distributing merchants" for "wholesale merchants" in his original [statement to your reporter. This is another illustration of his evasions. All distributing merchants would inalude all handlers of sugar in North Canterbury—wholesalers and retailers.' As tho retailers were not defendants in the recent prosecutions it is ridiculous to suggest that their stocks would bo reduced owing to the judgment against members of "the sugar ring." According to newspaper reports both in Cliristchurch and other centres, the first businesses to feel tho shortage of sugar were the manufacturers of confectionery, biscuits, etc., who are buying direct from the Sugar Company, on a different basis from tho handling of sugar for household purposes. Tho simple fact is that the stocks held by tho vendors, wholeale and retail alike, have not varied for many years past, and other commodities, sxich as coal and flour (in the North Island), are bound to give out also if steamer services, carrying supplies at close intervals, are suddenly interrupted. I never suggested that Mr Royds should supply mc with figures relating to his firm's business. What I did Bay was "that it was a simple matter for Mr Royds to prove his statements if ho can. Let him produce proofs to an independent investigator," a course I w'i'uld have at once pursued had I been charged with making a public statement which wa9 "a complete perversion of the facts."

The evidence produced in the Supreme Court in "Wellington showed that if "the sugar ring" had succeeded in driving out independent merchants it was their intention to keep to themselves the maximum discount of 5 per cent., which would have meant guaranteeing some fifty wholesale merchants, and a few preferred retailers, £30,000 per annum profit on all sales ex refinery, Auckland—sugar which they did not handle. All sales from merchants' stores would have carried much higher profits. The sugar rins were fined because tho Court held that their action was detrimental to the public interests in raising the price. Paragraph 37 in the statement of c'aim r^ads: "In or about tlie month of October. 1911. all tho abovr»-mentioTipd defendants unlnwfully and in brench of sertion 5 of the Act. conspired together to mmonnliso tho supply of snenr in New Zealand, and to control tho price thereof, such monopoly and rontml beinri of a nature contrary to the public interest." The Court's finding w.is that "all the defenfJfin+.n are pniltv o f the offeneo chanted in nnrnjr.inli 37 of the statement of olni*"." — v »rs. etc.. *\ATRRAIRN. Christohureh. November Bth.