CHAIN STORES INQUIRY

Southland Times, Issue 23026, 21 October 1936, Page 6

CHAIN STORES INQUIRY

CASE FOR COMPANIES REASON FOR, SUCCESS (United Press Association.) Wellington, October 20. That efficiency in trading and not mass buying was responsible for the success of chain and departmental stores was a claim made by a witness in evidence at the chain stores inquiry to-day. The committee was addressed by Mr G. G. G. Watson, representing Woolworths, Ltd., J. R. McKenzies, Ltd., and McDuffs, Ltd., and evidence was then given on behalf of Wool worths, Ltd. Mr Watson deprecated the value of the petition supported by Mr Wylie, and said it was clear that many of those who signed it did not support the views expressed before the committee. If counter petitions had been organized thousands of persons would have signed asking that the stores represented should not be menaced. Counter petitions had not been presented because the case could not be decided on the number of signatures obtainable, but on the actual facts. It was futile to suggest that a departmental store that dealt in more than one class of merchandise should be penalized by the Legislature. Such stores had been, and still were, the pioneers of trading in New Zealand. Any legislation penalizing such stores would affect the general city emporium, the general storekeeper in the country and the small suburban storekeeper, and legislation affecting chain stores would affect many old established businesses of many kinds. The success of chain stores did not inflict hardship except on inefficient or ultra conservative traders. Even if it could be shown that the individual trader suffered the interest of the public was paramount, and consequently improvements in merchandising should not be restricted. Question of Licensing.

Mast of the factors making for success in chain store trading were available to an independent single store retailer, said Mr Watson. Any licensing based solely on efficency and honesty would not be opposed by his clients, but they opposed any system of licensing designed to oppress or restrict their trading for the benefit of other traders, and they objected to a licensing system for revenue purposes because such a system would lead to an increase in the cost of living. Evidence was given by W. T. Kelly, a director and general manager of Woolworths (N.Z.) Ltd., who said that it was the policy of the company to sell New Zealand goods first where possible, Empire goods next and foreign goods last. Under 9 per cent, of the money expended in purchases went outside the Empire. The company had fostered many industries in New Zealand and there were now 1000 employees in the Dominion engaged solely in the manufacture of goods exclusively for the company. The company did not encourage backyard manufacturers, but dealt only with manufacturers who could supply their ngeds and keep up the supply. The company was entirely owned in New Zealand or Australia, and the profits did not go out of the country.