CHARGE FOR FRUIT CASES.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 17016, 13 December 1920, Page 9

CHARGE FOR FRUIT CASES.

GROWERS STAND FIRM. The Canterbury Fruitgrowers' Association decided earns time- ago to charge rotaikro Gd for each case auctioned as distinct from tho fruit the cftse contained, a decision that has been met by retailers with considerable resistance, tho position being: that many aro refusing to pay tho new charge. To consider ivhut steps should bo taken to meet the case a special meeting of the Canterbury Fruitgrowers' Association was held on Saturday night. Mr F. AV. Cone presiding over a large attendance. The chairman atated that the meeting lad been culled to consider what -was ?, burning question. .Retailers iu different parts of the Doiliiuion had stated that they were determined to resist the charge for cases. Ho would like to correct an erroneous impression that had created by reason, of ii< telegram which had appeared in the newspapers to tho effect that an additional charge of tid p?r case was being made for fruit cases. This was hardly a fair way to express tho matter, as tho charge'was being made for tho first time. However, in spit® of the retailors': attitude the public were gettiu" the fruit. "Whether the retailers handled it or no wac. not the affair of the Association. A suggestion had been made from the South that a. conference should be held by the parties concerned. Conferences had been held before, however, and had proved abortive, the retailers, asserting that they would not pay for the cases on principle.^ Mr Long ton, president of the Zealand Fruitgrowers' Federation, said that retailers in Christchurch had been very busy in their opposition to tho proposal. They had sent telegrani3 to various parts of tho Dominion, and altogether made ;t appear as though the retailers were e, -very solid body in their attitude. He ccruld 6tate that there were" over 33 retailers in Christchurck ■ paying for cases. There* wero only two or three retailers doing a biff business who were not paying for eases. The others were mostly shopkeepers on the outskirts of tho city. The retailers ought to nCmember that the cases were the onlv article with a, fixed value, tho fruit itself bein~ eubjcct to fluctuations. The only - argument the retailers 'could bring against the charge fras that they had to meet increased charges for paper bags. He maintained that the retailers had endeavoured to hold up the growers and instanced a en so of an attempt to boycott the etrawberry industrv. If tho Association ' stood firm they would, he felt sure, gain their point. The growers wcro out to increase the consumption of fruit, and had 1 imposed numerous restrictions on themselves •with ft view to improving l the standard of fruit. Ho contended that the restrictions he had referred to would greatly outweigh the charge for the cases in their benefit to retailers, . , , A telegram wa3 received from members of the Dunedin Fruit and Produce Brokers' Association stating that thev hod decided to chavgo for those cases where instructed by consignors to do so l'ho chairman said that if tlie» three firnff concerned were backing out of tho agreement, they had made with the Association, tij*» latter" should withdraw their names. TV"* meeting hero went into committee to i/>ar expressions of opinion from two representatives of southern Arms. Subsequently it was agreed to eend out fruit to those merchants only who agreed to charso for cases, and also that tho whole j matter should now be left ill the hands of the executive to deal with as they thought fit.