CHAFF BAGS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18320, 10 August 1921, Page 5

CHAFF BAGS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Along with many others I have a grievance which, as it is of public importance, I would ask your permission - to state. The’local stock and station agents have for many years been accustomed to charge the buyers of chaff for the bags, and on the empty bags being returned have credited the amount charged less a halfpenny, and in some instances one penny, per bag, this small amount being a charge for the use of the bags. A few months ago a new method was adopted, which doos not commend itself to those mostly concerned, the buyers of chaff. The larg£ firms handling chaff —namely, the stock and station agents, having met in solemn conclave and pledged themselves to “sit tight” in the matter, have decided to refuse to take back any bags which had contained chaff sold by them. I have felt the strength of their combination by refusals to take back empty bags, which were charged to mo at Is, and latterly at 9d, each. As I have no desire to hoard these bags up I made inquiries from a dealer and was offered 3d each for bogs which had cost me Is, involving me in the loss of 9d per hag, or, in other terms, increasing the cost of my chaff by 22s 6d a ton, 30 bags being reckoned to the ton.

Wore these bags new and charged at market value efie could not be, so much surpnsed, but they are oid and many oi tnem not even up to second-hand standard of values. New bags can be bought at from 6d to 6£d each. Then why should I or any other person, be cnarged an unjust valuer 1 think the agents should be satisfied with their commission, or with the profit they make out of the chaff when they, or at least some of them, act as dealers by buying in the country i'he agents loaded themselves with many thousand of bags at a high price. Some have unloaded, and with others the process is still proceeding at a fictitious value. But is it right lor them to use the strength of their combination to force me and others to assist them to unload at a price so much above real market rates? The treatment meted out to chaff buyers is an astute move, but at the same time is unfair and inequitable; and, although no doubt they will argue to the contrary, deep down ip their hearts they must be aware that their new system is too one-sided and needs remedying. , . . I regret haring to write in this strain, because my business relations with the stock and station agents of Dunedin have been of a pleasant character, and I trust that the agents may yet see a way to give relief in this matter by refraining from using their undoubted power in an amtrary manner, which is causing much discontent among many of their clients.—l am, etc., Thomas Smith. 191 George street, August 9.