CHAIN STORES

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLII, Issue 20531, 24 September 1936, Page 8

CHAIN STORES

PETITION AGAIN QUESTIONED INQUIRY CONTINUED By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, September 23. The chain stores inquiry was continued by the Industries and Commerce Committee of the House to-day. Mr G. Watson, appearing for a group of department stores, said that he had received from the Wellington Federation of buyers a letter asking to have their name withdrawn from the petition presented by Mr Wylie. The letter stated that many storekeepers 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 signed it under a misapprehension. Some of the people signing had given from £l/1/- downwards, but a 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. He produced a telegram from the Canterbury Master Butchers’ Association to the 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, ut they were afraid to come out now because of victimisation.” Mr Sullivan: “Why should they not be willing to give before Parliament evidence they would give before a Royal Commission?” Mr Wylie: “They are afraid of the publication of the evidence.” The chairman said that the committee would not be satisfied with the evidence until it had an opportunity of hearing statements from some of those who signed the petition. Mr Wylie replied that he could only arrange that if the Press 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 evidence. Evidence was given or. behalf of the Advisory Council of the New Zealand Standards Institute by L. J. McDonald, who submitted that the protection sought by the owners of individual stores against chain store competition could be best provided by the progressive application of the principle of standardisation.