POWER BOARD TRADING

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17407, 4 November 1930, Page 2

POWER BOARD TRADING

(To the Editor of the Herald.) Sir,—lii your issue of Friday last is reported the alleged reply of the P.B. Power Board chairman in connection with Mr. DeGosta's motion to abolish the trading department, and as the remarks as reported are so glaringly devoid of foundation I cannot allow them to pass without voicing our protest. Firstly, we had ranges installed in this district before the board came into existence, and moreover held the agency for the range the hoard adopted, and our principals had ample stocks to supply requirements and so had the other firms, otherwise what on earth are they in business for? Secondly, his statement that the board would have had to employ canvassers, etc., at a cost of about £7OO per annum is also obviously wrong, because the local traders would each have had their own men out ; moreover the competition would have been so keen that only good would have resulted to the board and at no loss to the ratepayers. As a matter of fact we had canvassers out, but had to discharge them owing to the board’s actions. Further, we know of several range customers lost to the board which we could have secured but for the hoard’s crude methods. The traders offered to do all this work and guaranteed to secure the load, and were led to understand that the board were satisfied with their proposals, but to the consternation of the traders, and without any reasons being given, the board, without any warning, and after stating that our proposals were reasonable, commenced trading within a few Weeks of our meeting them in committee. Now this could only have been tho result of some poisoning of their minds, probably by interested persons, aiid il the board members had any spark ©f British fair play in them, they would at least have called us together again and told us what had been said against us, bearing in mind that all our conversations with the board had been listened to by certain members of the staff, but we were not told what had been brought, against us to alter the views of the hoard so hastily, and it is quite evident that the chairman is merely repeating what he has been advised.

Finally the chairman says: “Most of the traders appreciated what the board has done.” Ye gods! I now challenge Mr. Ball to name these traders, and if he cannot then to publicly admit that his statement is not correct. The fact of the matter is that the board has a strangle-hold on the electrical traders in 'Gisborne, and to my mind it is the idfet unfair, un-British and iniquitous thing possible, that any more or less public body can enter into competition with established businesses which have been in existence years before the board was even thought of, and Who moreover have built up the greater portion of the existing load on the system, and can with the. help of the money of those traders as ratepayers, use it to unfairly compete against them without any compensation. Our thanks are due to Mr. DeCosta for his attempt to right a glaring injustice and to Mr. White for his support. The late Hon. jlr. Massey publicly stated that the clause in the Rower Board Act permitting them to trade was inserted merely in case it was found that a combination of traders were trying to fleece the public and' a board could then step in and prevent it. If any other meaning had been intended another clause would have been added providing compensation to traders in the same way that the bus proprietors were compehsated when a local body commenced a service in opposition to established services. Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for allowing us an ( opportunity to ventilate this matter.—Yours, etc. W. J. SINCLAIR. Sir, —We the undersigned have read the letter to your paper from Mr. W. J. Sihelair in connection with Power Board trading, and are pleased to endorse what he has said and to confirm the facts sot' out in his letter.—Yours, etc. ELLIS AND BULL, LTD. Per W. 11. Ellis. F. HALL AND SONS. Per 0. A. Iznd. i ■nil n 1 1 ,