CAMP CANTEEN PROFITS

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 59, 7 September 1917, Page 4

CAMP CANTEEN PROFITS

TO THE BDITOR.

Sir,—l desire to draw attention to the fact that, following upon the increased duty on cigarettes and tobacco, the prices of same in the canteens at Trentham and Featherston have been raised by Id on packages and tins selling previously up to Is.. Thus, for a package or tin formerly selling at 6d the soldier now pays 7d, and Is Id on packages or tins for which the price" a. week ago was Is. • Tin's, of course, is only in accordance with what has been done outside, and I am not reflecting qn the contractors. It is the system that I question. There are three issues which.l wish to raise in connection with this . matter. They are: (1) Is it the intention of Parliament that war taxation should be imposed on the men in camp, , whp, in thousands of instances, «tre drawing very much less pay than they received in civil life and who are going to do, the fighting for vis. (2) Has the extra war tax been paid on the tobacco and cigarettes now being sold in the camp canteens at such increased prices? If not, why are the canteen proprietors allowed to charge these extra rates to soldiers? (3) Is not New Zealand sadly behind the times in allowing the camp canteens to be run by private contractors for their own profit ? On the third issue I would point out that the Defence Department's present policy is based on the old British conservative system. This at Home broke down many months ago, when the War Office itself decided to take over all army canteens, thus eliminating private profit and selling goods at actual cost price, plus administrative expenses. Is it not time, sir, that we, too, swept away conservatism and applied the same democratic principles ? Parliament, perhaps, will be told that under the exisiting system the canteen profits in our camps are returned to the soldiers, That, however, is only partly true. The money so returned is only the amount the contractor tenders in open competition for the right to run the canteen, which gives him the sole monopoly in the camp. That money and the profits of the contractor which go to\ the contractor himself actually come out of the men's pockets. Can that be defended ? I do not see how it can, especially in view of the democratic lead given by the Old Country. Instead of paying retail prices the- men. in our camps should be getting their good* at > wholesale prices. The sanw should apply to the Territorial camps, the system for which should be built up now.—l am, etc., • NON-PROFITEER. sth September.