SUGAR OF MILK

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 January 1928, Page 5

SUGAR OF MILK

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In our newspaper of this (Saturday) evening is a complaint by Morpheus re midnight blasting. In this instance you had the courtesy to solicit an explanation, which was published beneath the complaint. In the same column of the same issue, “Mother” writes a far more serious indictment of Greymouth chemists, who are accused of profiteering on Sugar of Milk. Now, the price of Sugar of Milk was recently reduced by the manufacturers. This can be proved from manufacturers’ price-lists to anyone—not excluding yourself or your reporters—who are interested enough to make inquiries. The reduction became effective in the centres a few days before it became effective here. When the price was reduced to us, we reduced the price to our customers, immediately. Stocks held at the time were sold below cost until cleared. Now why were not we, or other chemists given the opportunity to reply to the accusations contained in the letter? We, and other chemists, support your paper by consistently using your advertising space. Why, then, do you discriminate so pointedly between the Greymouth Harbour Board and the Greymouth chemists, explaining a trivial complaint in the one instance, and in the other allowing serious and sweeping allegations to be published without seeking or giving opportunity for. explanation?— We are, etc. — PARKINSON & Co.

(We cannot undertake to obtain immediate replies to letters published, although where a local body, or State Department, is concerned, we endeavour to do so. Opportunity is always given to private firms or individuals, to have published any reply they may think necessary.—Ed. Star.)