FREEDOM OR SLAVEDOM-WHICH?

Evening Star, Issue 9154, 8 June 1893, Page 4

FREEDOM OR SLAVEDOM-WHICH?

TO THE EDITOK. Nik, —You cannot but have noticed during your experience of newspaper correspondents that when a letter is published which cannot easily be refuted by honest argument it generally calls forth a tirade of abuse. Such I claim to be the case in reference to my first letter under the above heading. I endeavored to point out, in as gentle a way as possible, and at the same time with a certain amount of firmness, that the adoption of a compulsory halfholiday, or rather the compulsory closing of shops on a half-holiday, would be an injustice, and a gross injustice, to a certain class of the community. That I have in a great measure proved my position is evident from the reply that that contribution has called forth from an individual calling himself "Consistency." If "Consistency" hail produced solid argument to prove me wrong in my position, I might not have taken the trouble to reply ; but beyond calling me a "social scavenger" and accusing me of seeking trade iitirregular ways, talcing advantage of my rivals by a back-stairs method and by underhand and deceitful dealings, he writes" very little. What he has written otherwise, however, I shall deal with in as concise a manner as possible, and I have no doubt but that I shall succeed in proving my position to be a very strong one.

In my letter I pointed out that, owing to the "cutting-in" system that exists amongst the larger business houses, business was taken away from the smaller shopkeepers, some of whom have to pay a larger price to the warehouse for their goods than that for which they are retailed in some of the larger shops. If " Consistency "is a shopkeeper at all, large or small (which I take leave to doubt), he will know that this statement is absolutely correct. Then, again, his rejoinder that a business that sells at a loss cannot exist very long is somewhat unnecessary. The length of time for which such a business could exist, however, would depend upon the amount of money the proprietor is prepared to lose before giving in, and if "Consistency" were to enter into conversation with some of these proprietors lie would learn from their own lips that it is, even "now, only a question of the "survival of the fittest." With some of them profit, to any appreciable epctent, is not looked for at all.

The question is asked,: " Is it likely that the man Avho keeps a large staff of assistants, has a large rent, etc., nan afford to undersell the small shopkeeper ?" I answer emphatically Yes; and I have proved it. The secret of price-cutting exists in the buying, and the greatei amount of goods that can be bought at one transaction by a shrewd buyer the less price he will likely have to pay for them. The small shopkeeper has not this advantage, inasmuch as his requirements will not admit of his buying in large quantities; and, moreover, he has not the money to do so. And if the small shopkeeper has 4o pay a much larger price for his wares than his more wealthy neighbor, how, I ask in the name of common sense, can he afford to undersell? I said nothing in my letter to lead "Consistency" to come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the small shopkeeper to raise his prices on a Saturday, or on any other day for that matter, when the larger .shops were closed, in order to sell at a profit. The small shopkeeper, as a rule, maintains a consistent scale of charges. The trouble is that while the larger shops are open he has to be content with selling very little, and it is only Avhen the undercutters are closed that he has an opportunity of selling his goods, or many of his goods, at all. I made this point very clear before, but perhaps it will now be clearer still—to "Consistency," at any rate.

To sum up, " Consistency" comments upon my statement regarding some of the gentlemen forming the deputation to Minister Reeves, and their action with reference to the half-holiday when it was first inaugurated, and would have us believe that they were not coerced into their present position, I would like to refer him to the statements made by one of them as a reason for his change of tactics. It was to this effect: That inasmuch as the law offered no protection to business men for damage done to

business premises as a result of riot, especially in reference to their claims for insurance should suTOpOMQises l>e fire, they fotpa throw in their'tpt wjsh their <oimresß<mk I cannot say, sir," tmt; these #pe words used, but |t|y wereJfca'thatjiifflfect, and were uttered *t ; a time, w, wjjptf the law-abiding portion of the community were willing to stand by them and commend tbem for their courage in abiding by their principles. If this was not a case of coercion, then I would very much like to know what would be.—l am, etc., E.V. Dunedin, June 6.