CHAIN STORES

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 302, 17 September 1936, Page 12

CHAIN STORES

Retailers’ Petition To Parliament OVER 9000 SIGNATURES Bona Fides Challenged By Counsel The bona Udes of a large number of the »480 signatories to the xecent petition to Parliament for legislation to curb the activities of chain stores in New Zealand were challenged by Mr. G. G. G. Watson when the !»• dustries and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives resumed its inquiry yesterday Mr. Watson, who is appearing for a group of departmental stores, said that a hurried perusal of the Petition disclosed that several of thesignatures were in the same handwriting, and that scores and scores of Chinese and Hindus bad signed their frames without a tittle of evidence to show that they understood what they were doing. The petition, which was presented to the House last Thursday, urges the Government to prevent departmental stores from carrying on more than one class of business under the same roof, and to prevent overseas capital from entering into the New Zealand retail trade. It was sponsored by. Mr. Arthur Douglas Wylie, of Wellington, who told the committee that he had travelled 16,000 miles to collect signatures of retailers in every nook and corner, from the North Cape to "the Bluff. He had received little or no wages. “However, I have an axe to grind,” he added, “and I hope tq have a keen edge to it by the time I am finished,” Mr. Watson said that .before Mr. Wylie was heard he would like to read a letter addressed to the chairman Of the committee (Mr. J. Hodgens). The chairman: I haven’t seen any letter. If it is addressed to me how on earth did you get hold of It? (Laughter.) Misrepresentation Alleged. Mr. Watson explained that the letter had been given to him with instructions to read it at the Inquiry, and then hand it to the chairman. It was from five manufacturing and retailing concerns who alleged that their signatures had. been obtained by misrepresentation. The letter, which was read by Mr. Watson and put in, was as follows:— We, the undersigned, desire to dissociate ourselvel from the petition promoted by the Massed Retail Traders’ Political Association, on the ground that our signatures thereto were obtained by misrepresentation, in that we were assured of the intention of the petition being designed only for the regulation of chain store businesses as distinct from that of the ordinary departmental establishment. Signed: Brown Ewing & Co., Ltd. Drapery and General Importing Co. of N.Z., Ltd. Wolfenden & Russell. Arthur Barnett, Ltd. Drapery Supplies Association, Ltd. - Mr. Watson said he would suggest that the committee should carefully scrutinize the petition. During the short time he had had to go through it he noticed several signatures purporting to be those of Chinese, but obviously written by a European. A number of Chinese and Hindu fruiterers had attached their names to the petition, although how Chinese and Hindu fruiterers were at all concerned m the inquiry he was at a loss to understand. He ventured the opinion that if the signatures of only bona fide retailers were taken into account the number remaining would be very small indeed. Mr. Wylie said that the petition was the largest ever presented to the New Zealand Parliament by the business community. It was a fact that “four or five so-called big business men" who had signed the document had asked eubsequent.y for the removal of their names. The petition, however, had nothing whatever to do with the organisation known as the Massed Retail Traders’ Political Association. It was ridiculous to suggest that any of those who had signed their names did not understand the meaning of the document when the wording consisted af only a few lines. 7 “Cut-throat” Competition.

Mr. Wylie said bis evidence would be a direct challenge to chain and departmental stores, and to monopolies, trusts and combines. Some of the largest manufacturers and merchants in the Dominion were in full sympathy with the petition. If the Government allowed the present “cut-throat” competition to continue thousands of people in the retail and wholesale business would be ruined. Clean competition was certainly the life of trade, but unscrupulous chain and departmental store trading should be restricted. Chain stores, privately-owned stores, dairies and even butchers were selling bread at from 6d. to 9d. for a 4lb. loaf, with free delivery in many cases. The bread was used as a decoy to draw people into the shop to buy other goods showing an overloaded margin of profit. The practice was started by the chain stores, and in self-defence the small shopkeeper followed suit. Every article sold to the consumer at less than a fair market value was a definite contribution to economic depression'.

“In presenting this great petition to Parliament,” said Mr. Wylie, “I wish to make it quite clear that we are not demanding anything but protection from cut-throat competition. We are appealing that we may protect ourselves, through the grace of our Government, against the menace of trade wars with great capitalised monopolies which we cannot possibly overthrow.

“Our petition is definitely not a move to raise the retail selling prices of commodities : all we ask is that we be granted tlie privilege to earn sufficient to live comfortably upon, after paying reasonable wages to our employees and all other business disbursements.” Mr. Wylie referred to the activities in South Africa of Mr. 1. W. Schlesinger, a wealthy business magnate, and said that Schlesinger’s agents had gone round buying out chemist shops until the firm bad acquired half the total number of chemist shops in the main cities. It was ouly when the company asked the House of Assembly to authorise the American system of drug selling that Schlesinger’s cunning system of chain and departmental stores was exposed to the public. “This was going on in South Africa at the same time Boots were trying to get a hold in New Zealand,” said Mr. Wylie. Mr. lan Macarthur. who was granted leave to interrupt Mr. Wylie’s evidence, said that he represented Boots (N.Z.), Ltd., and that as the name of his clients had been mentioned he claimed the right to be beard and to cross-examine the witness. The chairman : That opportunity will be given. r , Continuing his evidence. Mr. Wylie said that the case of the butcher would also stand investigation. Grocers and dairies stocked certain butchers’ fines, and combines and trusts, in the name of

freezing works, were conducting cut-throat competition in opposition to the retail butcher. Sausages were sold at 3d. a lb. although the casings cost from 1 l-Bd. to'lid. to every pound of sausages. Saveloys were sold for 6d. a dozen against 17in the shops, and although butchers had to pay 7jd. a lb, for lamb he had bought iamb from a freezing works for s}d. a

lb. Mr. Wylie said that a simple way of checking chain and departmental stores was by licensing and classifying. There must be what be would term a trade cycle from the manufacturer to the wholesaler or merchant, to the retailer, and to the consumer. If the wholesaler were eliminated approximately 18,000 employees would be displaced, and it was lietter for the welfare of the country that the consumers should have to pay approximately 1 per cent, more to keeif those 18,000 persons in employment.

He suggested that the manufacturer should be compelled to sell his goods to the wholesaler and not direct to the retailer. Then the wholesaler would in turn sell to the retail shopkeeper, but would not be allowed to sell direct to the consumer. The prices of manufactured articles from manufacturer to consumer would be controlled by a fixation of the maximum profit of 20 per cent, from the manufacturer to the retail shopkeeper From the retail shop to the consumer hr suggested a maximum ot 25 per cent. The inquiry will be continued thiimorning, when Mr. Wylie will submit further evidence.