CHAIN STORES INQUIRY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19128, 24 September 1936, Page 5

CHAIN STORES INQUIRY

CHALLENGE TO PETITION REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE VICTIMISATION FEARED (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The chain stores inquiry was continued yesterday by the Industries and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives Mr. G. Watson, appearing for a group of department stores, said he had received from the Wellington federation of buyers a letter asking to have their name withdrawn from the petition presented by Mr. A. D. Wylie. The letter stated that many storekeepers had signed the petition under an entire misapprehension and now wished to withdraw their support.

Mr. Wylie, in reply, said that the petition consisted of only two lines, it was difficult to see how anyone could have signed it under a misapprehension. Some of the people signing had given from one guinea downwards, but the majority had given practically nothing. He considered that 60 per cent of the business people in New Zealand were lacking in business acumen and business intelligence. STRONG SUPPORT

Ho produced a telegram from the Canterbury Master Butchers' Association to tho effect that it was strongly in support of the petition. The Hon. D. G. Sullivan: Did you personally get the signatures? Mr. Wylie: There were four others besides myself. I called on 300 or 400. There were many who would come forward before a Royal Commission, but they were afraid to come out now because of victimisation.

Mr. Sullivan: Why should they not be willing to give, before Parliament, evidence fliey would give before a Royal Commission?

Mr. Wylie: They were afraid of the publication of evidence^ The chairman said that the committee would not be satisfied with the evidence until it had the opportunity of hearing statements from some of those who had signed the petition.

Mr. Wylie replied that ho could only arrange that if the press representatives were not present. Otherwise it might lead to victimisation. The chairman said that the committee should have before it representatives of the interests that Mr. Wylie claimed he had authority to act for, and they should insist on hearing that evitfence. Evidence was given on behalf of the advisory council of the New Zealand Standards Institute by Mr. L. J.' McDonald, who submitted that the protection sought by owners of individual stores against the chain store competition could be best provided by a progressive application of the principle of standardisation.