CAMP CANTEENS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17860, 5 August 1918, Page 8

CAMP CANTEENS.

DEFENCE COMMISSION'S

REPORT.

Canteens for the supply of articles for tho men (other than those allowed by Army kssuo), which might be termed luxuries were run in hoth camps by contractors, but some six months ago at Featherston a departure was made and the camp took over the canteon, which is now run by soldiers of Class C2, tho whole of whoso pay and emoluments arc defrayed out of canteen funds, states the Defence Expenditure Commission in its report. Prices have been considerably reduced—an average of 30 per cent is claimed—but its is :oo early yet to speak with certainty of net results. However, from all appearances it is going to pay the camps better to run these canteens and cut out' profits. On the ether hand, there is no evidence to show that the contractors made such large profi'.s as might be suspected from A cursory glance at the difference in prices now charged from those previously ruling. For instance, the contractors paid into regimental funds 2Jd per day per head of troops in camp, which payment amounted in tho last year of running; to £13,000. On tho same capitation basis, and with fewer men in camp, a 'contractor would now be paying at the rate of £BOOO per year for the canteen right, and the turnover would be about £75,000. On present reduced prices of goods the men, boweler, are paying for their stuff at the rate of £24,000 per year less, and at the same time the canteen is still making profits, as evidenced by the fact that in four months £2141, or at the rate of, say, £6OOO per year, was handed over to Camp Headquarters to,provide comforts for men ou their voyage to England. The canteen estimated yearly financial results may therefore be stated as under:—

Saving to soldiers . , , 24,000 Profit on canteen , , , . 6,000

30,000 Lcrs subsidy that a contractor would ; »'(; pay ... : .' 8,000 Net annual advantage of tho camp running its own canteen . . 22,000 This is after paying wages and providing for food and uniform's of all canteen employees, numbering fiftythree, and allowing- at the rate of £ ISOO per year for depreciation of stock, etc., and £450 for rental of the canteen building, which cost the Govornment £3OOO.

It is riot really important that the canteen shall actually make £6OOO ner year, at«i, in fact, such a large sum is not now necessary, the camp being properly established. It is really immaterial as long as the soldiers get the direct benefit of tho lowest prices .for goods of the best quality. There is not tho same inducement to purchase lowerquality goods at lesser prices in the case of the camp running the canteen as in the case of a contractor running it, because he must make a profit over and above his Tent, contribution and expenses to enable him to live., The question, too, is largely one of management, and Featherston wiasparticularly fortunate in securing the services of_ a successful merchant in the Territorial Force, Captain Andrew Fairbairn, of wide experience, who has made it his hobby, and whose canteen is a credit to him and all concerned with it. Very wisely, he i 9 going slow-' ly, and wants to see what the results of the venture at Featherston are before he takes over the Trentham canteen. ' • •