QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 11 June 1926, Page 5

QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED

. (To' The Editor.) Sir.—lf the Hospital Board has done nothing else it has certainly ' caused notoriety, if not fame, for its hysterical outburst as published last evening. The Board solemnly congratulates the chairman for the manner in which he has "scotched" all criticism put forth by The Mail and its correspondents. Mr Rout in a statement that,is noteworthy riot only for its lack of logic but also for its shower of abuse, says in effect, "I have waited a fortnight and no man dare oppose me. Yea,_ I have triumphed mightily." He omitted to .say that seven questions were put to him and. that he waited six weeks to give what he termed' a "reply." As a matter of fact he himself made no reply at all. He apparently had to write to the successful Wellington, firm before he was in a position' to say anything. Out of the seven questions asked he answered three. The re-" ply when boiled down -came to ; this: Gibson and Pattersons are are strictly wholesale and not retail; they submitted firm prices, to the Board; they are the controlling agents and goods are. sold at fixed list prices; Grindley's crockery is good crockery There, is not the slightest attempt to answer the questions as to whether Nelson traders were given a chance, nor is there any attempt to justify that omission. According to your leader last night one of. the traders here still maintains that he could have supplied the crockery. The chairman says' "even if we could have got it through a local firm it would have been dearer.'"' How does he know ? Besides,' according' to Messrs Gibson and Patterson, the Grindley crockery is a list line with fixed prices, so that they could not sell at a cheaper rate than anyone else. Messrs Gibson and Patterson say this is the best crockery in the. world. It may be, but possibly that is an opinion not shared entirely by other makers of hotel crockery, of whom there are a .large", number in England. Mr Rout knew perfectly well that by deliberately delaying his reply for six weeks, he made it diffi-. cult to carry on the correspondence, because as you put it in your leading article there was a danger of the public being surfeited with the whole matter. But Mr Rout and his Board surely cannot be under the delusion that their reply was anything so terrific in its force as to silence all critics. —I am. etc., DISGUSTED.