FRUIT GROWERS AND SELLERS

Evening Star, Issue 16823, 27 August 1918, Page 7

FRUIT GROWERS AND SELLERS

THEIE DISPUTE ABOUT CASES •IS VIEWED BY ONE- WHO KNOWS BOTH SIDES. The retail fruiterers object to pay th© fruitgrowers for cases. The argument has been stated in letters from each side, and it may be of interest to present the view of a man who stands midway and understands the whole subject. Mr A. Moritzson is in that position. He is a fruit auctioneer, and he is an orchardist, the owner of 30 acres, and as he is thus in a position to give a judgment on the question, we ashed him to do so. This is hia reply : At the present Lima th© question of packages, such as sacks and cases, is exercising the minds- of both farmers and fruitgrowers. owing to the fact that these articles have gone to a very high price a© a result of war conditions. It is expected that sacks will cost th© farmers 2s ’■piece next season. That means 24s per on if sacks ar© given in with potatoes. ?he fruitgrower is in a similar fix. The toards for his cases are cut at th© mills ind he nails them together, and the cost fow is Is 3d each for bushel oasesj and iOd for half-bushels or quarters, with the prospect of a further rise. The fruitgrower maintains that during the flush of the season and fox the greater part of the year the prices he receives for both pip and stone fruits do not leave him a big margin of profit. If his orjha.rd is to pay h© must shear away all ivoid'iblo expense. He also asserts that Ihere is no fair comparison between his {unfits and th© profits of th© retail fruiterer, because the retailer fixes his charges according to ascertained cost, whereas the glower ia liable to all eorts of expenses that he cannot foresee, such as the condemning of fruit in adverse seasons, when spraying has little or no »ffect, also the troubles caused by insect pests, late frosts, heat waves (which sometimes spoil tons of stone fruit), and other worries. As matters stand, the grower is running all the chances. Up to now the retail fruiterer has paid nothing for his cases, and as a fact they have yielded him a return, for ho sells the empties at from 3d to 4jd for bushel cases and from 2d to 3d for half-bushel cases. This sticks in the growers throat. It seems to him unfair that he should take al! the growing risks, and provide cases, and then find the fruiterer making money out of them to supplement the steady profit of his selling. I must cay that in my judgment the grower has cause to sing aut.

There is an exception to the condition >f affairs, as I have stated it. The Central Otago growers who sell to the jam factories make it a condition that the :ases are to be returned. That means i considerable save, balancing the lower prices which the factories pay for the fruit. The factories do not pay the freight on the return empties. Up to 100 miles the empties are carried free on the railways, and for over ICO miles the charge is at the minimum rate, so there is not much money in it.

The Fruitgrowers’ Federation have shown much wisdom and much activity in their general policy in the interests of the industry, also a readiness to submit to taxation. I may instance, in that connection, the fact that two years ago the federation petitioned Parliament to tax orchards Is per acre per annum, and this was given effect to, with the result that -.bout £2.000 per year is available from the [rowers’ pockets, to stimulate the trade, x> find export markets, to increase the ©cal consumption, to pay for the circulation of literature, to combat insect and fungoid diseases, and to help the industry jenerally. This is expansion work of the best and most practical kind. I mention these things to show that “grab” is m-'

tt© federation's policy, and that when they ask to be paid something for empties they have a right to be heard. At the last annual” meeting of the federation in Nelson it was decided to charge 6d for bushel and 4d for halfbushel cases. This demand is, I think, perfectly reasonable, particularly in view of the fact that the retailer sells his empties. This is no new view with me, I have advocated that the grower should charge the retailer 9d for bushel and 6d for halfbushel cases, and return 6d and 4d respectively when the cases are sent back in good order. But the present proposal is fair. I do not see that the retailer can show it to be unfair. More to the point, I do not think the public would object, and it is the public and not the retailer that has to pay,’ sine© the extra cost is always passed on. I support the federation’s demand as equitable, and if it is adopted as the trade custom, and the federation’s advocacy of a standard case for the whole of New Zealand for the carriage of apples, pears, stone fruits, and tomatoes is also adopted, it seems to mo that the industry will be on a better footing altogether, and in a position to work with more satisfaction to all concerned.