THE FRUIT CASE CONTROVERSY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17426, 21 September 1918, Page 8

THE FRUIT CASE CONTROVERSY.

TO THS *I)1T0B. Sib, My coinpimy ia aparently a pivot of widespread controversy on rh" point whether unit cases are to be paid ior or given 311, and as you ii&vo pubiiiiiied an interview with soiim} 01 tne retail Iruiterers X tamk 1 should put you 111 possession ot iacta iiud comment sienatini on tne v«u*iouß paragraphs contained in your to-day s issue. (A) 1 do not think the formation of & iCctuj] fruiterers' .Association rignt tnroughout Uio iioutn Island will meet with success. Kver since tne boycott ot my company started country fruiterers irom invercargill to •iiinaj.u nave rung up and given us their orders, a number ot them plainly tilling us that Li ley prefer to deal with the Fruitgrowers Co-operation , direct rather than uirougli middlemen. it is a well known lact that most ol the country iruiterers have purchased iiitherto through agents in Dunedin who are retail iruiterers attending the sales. Unly yesterday, one oi the principal iruiterers irom Balcmtha came into our auction rooms and purchased a large parcel oi the various fruits we had in store, and lie expressed the opinion that it would bo against his interests to continue to purchase through a retail fruiterer who formerly acted for him as his agent in Dunodin. Ihe cost of the paper bags supplied to tin? public is infinitesimal. I leave it to you, Sir, to judge whether, if the retail iruiterer purcuases apples wholesale at irom 3d to 3£d per lb, he cannot afford to give ' in a paper bag when he charges the publkj 6d per lb. It is suggested that the fruitgrower would make a considerable amount of money out of the continuous difference of 2d between the selling and the buying price of cases. Bushel cases are worth to the grower la 3d each. Add to this the paper lining, if any, and the paper wrapping and allow the small sum of Id for this; the cases will then cast the grower Is 4d apiece. According to the strongest argument advanced by the retailens that case would have to travei eight times between grower and retailer betore the grower gets full value of his case. From long experience, however, I consider that if a case travels four times, that is more than its lifetime. In most cases, when the fruiterer gets his fruit into his shop he tears upon either the top. bottom, or one of the sides quite irrespective of whether the lid or the side comes ofj in one piece or in half a dozen. The lids are indiscriminately thrown into the cellar or into some corner, and. the cases are emptied and are also thrown into the cellar or corner, and in a very few instances only does the very particular small man ever attempt to put the lids on again when the case is empty. There is always such a demand for cases during certain seasons that anything will do to send back to the unfortunate grower as long as there is some timber hanging together, and many a letter is received from the country complaining about this matter. It requires quito a number of empty cases to patch up and complete the remainder. But after all is said and done, the company does, not ask the fruiterer to return cases; if they have none for sale, well and good. The fruiterer when buying by the case has got a very fair idea of the contents notwithstanding- the weights marked on the oases. Time after time before the parcel ia put up at auction, cases are put on the scales in front of the buyers, and the correct weight is announced and the fruiterer bids on that basis. It is a well-known fact that there is- a small coterie of some three or four fruiterers who often join forces at the sale and arrange for only one to bid. This reduces legitimate competition, and when the line is knocked down the fruiterer generally cuts it up between those of whom the coterie consists. I am very sorry indeed that cause should have arisen for this dispute. lam satisfied that, with a very little careful thought on the side of the retail fruiterers, they should have come to the conclusion that tha little the fruitgrower asks should have been gracefully conceded by them. The fruit grower takes 90 chanccs of loss through so many contingencies, while the proportion of the retailer does not amount to more than 10 out of a possible 100. The grower has only one harvest in the year, and cannot possibly make up any loss for that year, while the retailer can make up his los 3 every week many times over. In conclusion, I venture to say that if the fruiterer could not hav& seen ey6 to eye with the Otago fruitgrowers in regard_ to cases he would have been better advised not to put a boycott on thousands of deserving men and women who toil from morning to night, among them being many producers who send their consignments long distances over the seas. —I am, eta, William G. Gould, Manager, The • Co-operative Fruitgrowers of Otago, Limited. Dunedin, September 20.