Correspondence.

Lake County Press, Issue 703, 9 April 1896, Page 7

Correspondence.

INCONSISTENT W OL AND GRAIN REPORTS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l notice in your last issue a letter by Messrs Moritzon’and Hopkin in which they use my name very frequently. I would like to point out that I merely forwarded copies of two reports of auction sales held here on the 9tn March to show that “ Farmer’s ” contention re inconsistency was not far out. Be it clear 1 never said barley was uot worth 4s or even 5s per bushel, for if Messrs M. and H. can get farmers this price they, in my opinion, would be foolish not to patronize them. lam quite satisfied to see business going past me when the farmer is benefiting by it. It is the inconsistency I take exception to. For instance, in your issue of 12th Marcti, Messrs M. and H. report “ malting, if prime, 3s 6d to 3s 10& ” (Dunedin); and at same time 3s 61 to 4s at Fiankton, which equals 4s to 4s 6d at Dunedin. Again, in your issue of 19th March, they quote prime malting 3s 9d to 4s at Dunedin, without denoting any fall in the market. Could anything be more inconsistent ? lam satisfied to leave it to your readers to judge. Another thing to note is the aburdity of quoting prime barley with 6d per bushel margin. Any barley falling short in value by more than 2d per bushel off top quotation cannot possibly be termed prime. Why not then, instead of misleading by quoting prime 3s 6d to 4s, quote it 3s lOJ to 4s at Franklon, and let the farmers know whether it is 3s Gd they are to expect or 4s. —I am, etc., W.E.R. Dunedin, March 23, 1896.