SMALL TRADERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 2 July 1936, Page 9

SMALL TRADERS

(To The Editor)

Sir,—The Welfare League’s Idea of entertaining us is—after lengthy periods for rehearsal —to occupy your space and give us a succession of short classical dances. In the past, any merit in their performances has always been marred by their inartistic “shuffle off”. Their last effort, however, was not even a shuffle —just a trip and a stumble and they vanished out of the limelight. They trip when they say I believe the small trader should not be regarded in the economic life of the State, and decidedly stumble when they say “no doubt I would like to see the small trader replaced by ‘big business’.” It is unnecessary to tell your readers but l would like the League to know, I am a hundred per cent, for the small trader. My desire is to see him protected, not only from-the multiple trader, but also from a multiplicity of traders.' That much was conveyed in my last letter to your intelligent readers and evidently did not apply to the Welfare I.eague. Further, I am fully convinced that to take the trade of a hundred shops and make it the business of one man, is robbery, though I do not take the credit or responsibility for the statement. G. K. Chesterton has said it for me. Irrelevancy, is the parrot cry of the League and I suppose they consider it irrelevant of me to draw attention to thendisinterested attitude to the smaltrader and the chain store menace. In like manner I had io prove the hypocrisy of the League when they took a sudden interest in the investments of small holders. It will have been noted that the League were mutely silent regarding the effect of the chain store on the small trader rut still voice Government restriction dangers, about which they also tell us nothing, for fear of getting into fui - ther trouble. They prefer fo rely on, further pulling the leg of the small trader by telling him what a valuable asset he is to the community until such times as the “big” trader puts him out of business and he ceases tc be an asset. The League have a nice assortment of red herrings which they nave been trailing ever since the election, and they are very, very fishy. If the League were a commonsense combination they could realise that the people changed the Government not because they wanted a new Parliament but new legislation. My meaning is better expressed by Saville when he says—“To change a Government without altering the laws is like a drunkard with the dropsy, changing his doctor and not his diet.” Regarding State ownership. It would be infinitely better for the people, including the small trader, for distribution to be in the nands of the State than controlled fcy big business combines. We have experienced what private control of the King’s money can do for us. We have some knowledge of what happens to our food in the hands of profiteers. If the small traders are not to remain the distributors, then we must control it as a community. T am looking forward to the next new item by that side-stepping ballet —the Welfare League.—l am, etc.. IKONA MALI. Nelson, Ist July.