Hear the Other Side,

Southland Times, Issue 13280, 5 August 1895, Page 3

Hear the Other Side,

jfo .the editor. Sib, —I don’t know who “Peter Simple” is, but if he had kept a store as long as I have and become acquainted with the devious ways by which some people seek to get out of.paying their just debts,[he would take a different view of Mr Kelly’s action in connection with the .Wages Attachment Abolition Bill, or the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Bill. I consider all who voted against the two did it in good faith that it would be beneficial to storekeepers generally. “P.S.” says “ abolish, credit which is at the bottom of all the evils, and drink, which is the cause that makes credit necessary.” Every storekeeper would say : “Certainly, abolish credit, if possible.” Many storekeepers now are more alive to

the advantages of the cash system, but does any one of these cash stores deal exclusively for cash ? I hardly think so. The matter stands thus : A family begins to deal with a storekeeper; for some time the payments are made regular enough; when excuses begin to be made—-they may be true or otherwise —the father out of work, sickness in the family, etc. Now the cash is not forthcoming but still the family must eat. Can a storekeeper say to such, “ I cannot give

you any goods without the cash, ” and expect his neighbour to give credit to this family who have been buying for cash in his store for so long? I trow not. I have known this same sort of case get into one’s books a long bill and never think the long standing account ought to be settled ; but when pressed to settle give cheek and take what cash they have to another door. In these times of small profits wo need every penny for which we have given goods. Another reason that has been advanced to me for not settling an old account has been: “ Well, we have given you a lot of money,” as if they had given the cash without receiving full value in goods. These are no isolated cases, but form the tale any storekeeper can tell to his cost. So I think Mr Kelly’s voting on these two bills is to be commended, although, as far as imprisonment for debt goes, it cannot help, only as a deterrent to those who can and won’t pay. Those who can’t are already very well protected by decisions in the S.M. Court. How Mr Kelly voted on the Honorarium Attachment Bill, I cannot now remember, but I think he voted against it.—l am, &c., Small Storekeeper. 31st July.