Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2276, 22 August 1908, Page 4

[Correspondence! on public matters is welcomed nt all times, but it. must bo distinctly understood that, this journal is in no way associated with the opinions of its correspondents.j

GISBORNE CO-OI’EEATIA'E RAKER Y CO.ML 1 AN V, Lit).

[To 'run Editor.] Sir,—l have' read with interest 11 letter in your issue of to-day (Friday) over the signature of Cecil Lewis, dealing with the co-operative bakery movement, and regret that the gentleman named should have made it essential for .me to appear in print to remove and correct misstatements which are set out in his letter. Were his 'statements, not calculated to injure me in my business generally, 1 should treat the letter with the contempt it deserves, hut if 1 adopted this course many of your readers would think there was some truth in your correspondent's statements. I shall, with your permission, deal with the statements in the order in which they appetfr. Mr. Lewis states I offered to got subscribers for him. I give this an unqualified and emphatic denial. 'When 1 stato I was at that time keeping Mr. Hailey’s holes, your readers will easily see I had a very good reason for not wishing to do so, as it is extremely unlikely an accountant would canvass for tiny, concern in direct conflict with his own business. In other words, I should have lost Mr. Hailey’s book-keeping and receive nothing from Air. Lewis in return. This leads me to the second point in your correspondent's letter, viz., tlio amount of remuneration I shall receive if 1 succeed in floating tlio above company. Mr. Lewis states I shall receive £377 10s. This is so obviously incorrect that it is searcely worth contradicting. The prospectus states that Mr. Hailey is to pay ane the sum of fifty guineas for my services as promoter; that it to say, I am to sell Mr. Hailey’s business to a company and receive a commission from him for so doing. If I sold the business to a private individual in tho ordinary course of business I should bo entitled to commission, but as Mr. Hailey pays this and lias not increased the price for fo doing, it is solely Mr. Hailey’s business. Then Mr. Lewis says I shall get £75 for preliminary expenses. I should like to enlighten your correspondent on this point. This clause is one which has to be inserted in every prospectus to comply with the Companies Act, 1903, and includes brokerage, legal expenses, printing, etc. Should I succeed in floating the company with £IOOO subscribed capita], I shall receive £SO for so doing. Assuming that it is canvassed for three months, tho time allowed by law, with one canvasser only, the salary of such canvasser would absorb most of the sum. Air. Lewis can of course afford to givo hi,s services gratuitously; others must charge for canvassing, and be paid on results. To answer the third paragraph of Air. Lewis’ letter, it will be necessary to give a short resume of the history of the movement. Air. Lewis canvassed for shares for a co-operative bakery about May last, since when ho has not mentioned the matter to me, although, as lie states, my oifice adjoins his. At the end oT June -or. Hailey offered me his business to- float into a co-operative company. As Air. Lewis bad been canvassing previously, 1 considered it better to wait to seo if his undertaking would go on. After waiting over a month, and hearing nothing more from Air. Lewis, I arranged with Air. Hailey to proceed with the floating of his business, the prospectus not being issued for nearly three months from the time Air. Lewis was canvassing. The company I am endeavoring to float is going on sound business lines only. Mr. Hailey has a real good business, a firstclass plant, capable of producing a large quantity of bread at a minimum of cost, and is prepared to sell out at valuation. He has a lease at .£52 per annum, and has sublet part at £SB 10s per annum. His presentlease has 3] years to run, rent free, ■and lie requires £350 for his lease, or less than £2 per week rent, to put it in, other words. Yet Air. Lewis told about 60 persons at a meeting on Monday night that this was worth nothing—a remarkable statement for a gentleman who is obtaining his livelihood as a Government land valuer to make. As to • Air. Lewis’ statement that one of my directors was misinformed or deceived by me into thinking that I was fostering his (Air. Lewis’) scheme, I should advise him to see that gentleman again and make liis mind easy on that point. I may state that I have, right through emphasised the fact that the company I am promoting has no connection with Air. Lewis, and my canvassers are doing likewise. A glance at my directorate i 6 in itself sufficient to inspire confidence in the venture, seeing that they are all gentlemen of high reputo in Gisborne.

This concern has a paying business right away, and if there are lame E refits in the bakery (as we are led to elieve), our shareholders will _reap the benefits of cheap bread, seeing that only a nominal dividend will be allowed on capital invested, the bulk of profits being returned to consumers as a bonus in proportion to number of loaves consumed.

I must apologise for trespassing on your valuable space to this extent, and thank you in anticipation for your courtesy in publishing a full explanation.—l am, etc. C. G. PIESSE, Secretary and Broker Gisborne Co-operative Bakery Company,'Ltd. NO-LICENSE.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —Allow me to correct a little error in my letter of yesterday morning. According to “Quid Nunc” 86 drunks were handled in 1907-8. I suppose he means from June 1907 to last June, a period of twelve months. If this is so the average should bo 7 1-6 per month, instead of 4]. The average tfor Gisborne is about ten per week, and at this rate there will bo over 500 eases at the end of the year as compared with 86 for Invercargill. Police investigation have revealed the fact that most, of the cases for drunkenness tried in Invercargill were attributabe to licensed districts, a thing they can’t say of Gisborne. I wonder why we should feel concerned about Invercargill and not about our own town.—l. am etc. “WHAT NOW.”

[To the Editor.] Sir, —I have read with interest a rather lengthy letter under the liom do plume “What Now,” and on a matter of principle 1 feel bound to take, exception to one or two remarks therin. “Wlmt Now” says: “From January to March (3 months) there wore fifteen convictions for drunkenness iir Invercargill (with a population of 11 ,oUB )as compared with 122 cases in Gisborne (with a population of 5664). With regard to the figures re population, 1 have no fault to find, but 1 challenge “Wliat Now” to prove that 122 convictions for drunkenness were recorded out of the Gisborne population of 5664, and to test our friend’s sincerity in the matter I am willing to deposit any sum up to £5 (the loser to pay tho monev to the public hospital) that he cannot prove that the said 122 convictions for drunkenness were recorded against residents of this town, the population of which is as stated—s 664. The' jurisdiction of the Gisborne Police. Court extends (I am told) from the East Cape to Wairoa, and eases of drunkenness at To Ivaraka, Ormond, and Waercnga-a-liikn are usually disposed of in tho mailt Courthouse in this town, whilst similar cases on the East Coast on tlic one side, down to Wairoa on the otner, would also appear on the Gisborne police records. A much better comparison would he to take the number of electors on the roll at the last election, namely—lnvercargill 7411, and Wairoa (which is not the full extent of this Court’s jurisdiction) 7891. These figures are, like our friend’s, taken from the year book of 1906. Of late we have heard a great deal of what Mr. Harnett has stated with regard to prohibition in Invercargill, ami whether his statements are true or false, it is certainly no roason why your correspondents “What Now and “Moderate” should belittle tkemi

selves by throwing mud at the whole team, particu larl.v as these men are out of the colony and unable to dofeud themselves. In future I hope both siiles will content themselves with a faee-to-faee fight and leave such mud-slinging tactics to others.— 1 am, etc., L. A. SIIARLAND.

[To TUB Ethtou.l Sir, —The letter signed “What Now” in this morning's paper is without a doubt blatant and misleading, and is « barefaced attempt to hoodwink the general public. There are many circumstances that must be considered, and considered carefully, before attempting to compare, as “What Now” has done. Invercargill with Gisborne. Let me mention two important factors not duly recognised by yujir correspondent. Firstly—Gisborne lies -a much larger and more mixed floating population than has Iho Southern (own ; sailors, liuslmieu, and people of the usual travelling variety come to Gisborne, hut arc hardly over seen in .Invercargill. Those chiefly are the offenders under tho Licensing Acts. They are not- residents of "Gisborne, nor can their acts reflect upon the local people. Secondly—the police returns for Gisborne' cover a far greater area than do those for Invercargill. AVo have to bear the brunt (in argument) of tlio ill-doing of frequenters to tho scattered country hotels—men who have made a cheque and arc out to “hit it- up” at all costs. All eases from tho East Capo to tlio lar distant boundaries of the Gisborne Police District come under tho heading ot “Gisborne’s Drunkenness” —according to a rabid prohibitionist. This is manifestly unfair to Gishorncites. and in justice to all concerned ‘‘Wlnyt Now” would do well to rearrange his figures before again posing in tho public oyo. All level-bonded and fairminded folk would very much like to know how many of tho 122 cases quoted arc actual members of tho local population (566-1), and how manv are eases from outlying districts, then some fair method ot comparison may bo obtained. “Wliat Now” also seems to imagine that his side of the vexed question is of such power that when once No-liconso is carried in a district the character ot its people becomes almost entirely changed—in fact, ho mantles No-licen-se with a power almost divine. It has no siH-li power, nor will ever have, whilst human nature is as God mado it..—l am, etc., , IcmJRCmrAN „