A LACK OF SYSTEM.

Evening Star, Issue 16050, 29 February 1916, Page 1

A LACK OF SYSTEM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—" Economise” is the advice tendered to-day by statesmen here and in all parts of our Empire. Apparently such, council is unheeded, for we read of picture shows being overcrowded and race meetings, etc., being well patronised, notwithstanding our country is mourning the loss of our deceased kith and kin during this great war. A channel in which economy or reform is needed is moat surely in our present system of distribution, wlich appears to be most absurd and expensive. .My contention is that too much overlapping takes place both in manual and horse labor, i have counted more than onoe eight, milk carts, each with a man and boy in attendance, serving in one small street oefore 9 a.in., where one man or lad could serve .the whole street singlehanded in, say, half an hour- Then, again, in the grocery trade, quite a small contingent of men are similarly employed, one receiving orders, another, later on, with horse and cart, delivering for different business firms for almost each household in the street. This system obtains with butcher,' baker, etc., in precisely the same manner, and all are being utilised in, a non-productive capacity Now, what would we think to see three or four newspaper boys or postmen delivering in one small .street, or how long would the management of a productive industry exist that permitted even one man. to overlap the of. another .vcpikmanf

Such expensive distribution must be aconsiderable factor in the high cost of living, and. for that reason alone deserves attention. Curtailment on such lines may possibly servo a purpose superior to a small advance In wages. The military could also bo assisted by relieving a number of these men, who are undoubtedly of an. active, useful class. Wanganui and Palmerston North are tackling this question, and I would like to see the reason explained by some student of economy why an alteration is either unworkable or undesirable nationally.—l am, etc., Observer. February 29. «