CORRESPONDENCE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 52, 2 March 1908, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

4 EXPLOSTIKGJTHE PUBLIC ? TO TUB EDITOR.

Sir, — On reading Messrs. Virtue and Company's letter, in reply to mine, in your issue of the 27th, the Millers' Combine may well say, "Save us from our friends," for I have never met with a more lame and impotent attempted defence. Special pleading and vague general statements are very interesting, ' But they fail to shake the main point made, namely, that while wheat was worth Is per bushel more than at the present juncture, the price of flour remains unaltered ; no amount of casuistry or explanation can get away from this admitted fact, and 1 can easily perceive a smile on the faces of the most incredulous when they are gravely informed that the combine- has been selling flour for a considerable time at a loss of 53s per ton. 'Messrs. Virtue 1 and Co. question my figures, but fall in badly when dealing with them. For instance, I stated that while wheat was marketed at 5s 3d to 5s 4d, the ouotation for flour was £11 ; they state, mf erentially, that -at this lime wheat must ' have been. 5s 6d, therefore my contention that the community is being , exploited is strengthened, for, if th© ' millers could afford to buy wheat at' 5s 6d; and sell flour at £11, what should . they do when operating at 4s 3d to, 4s 6d? To furher show the fallacy of their arguments, I send you for per--usal a letter just received from a Melbourno firm, quoting milling wheat at, 4s l^d per bushel f.0.b., or flour in. 25. ton parcels (March and April delivery) , at £8 10s per ton. Please note forcomparison the price of wheat in Mel-; bourne, as against the value, of^flour, for a complete demolition of Messrs. Virtue's contention on this head. I again reiterate that the time is ripe for' you; sir, to take up this matter in your! editorial columns, for this correspondence ends as far as I am concerned.—" I am, etc., WELLINGTON MERCHANT. .Wellington, 28th February, 1908.