22 PROCEEDINGS OF NINETEENTH FRUIT GROWERS' CONVENTION. 



error when he says that the buyers generally are represented in both 

 New York auction rooms. Since the great majority of New York buyers 

 being small dealers, peddlers, and hucksters, they have neither partners, 

 clerks, nor other employes who can represent them in one room while 

 they are in attendance at the other, thus making it plain that two sales 

 going on in New York at the same hour must largely mean a division of 

 buyers and a lessened competition among them, to the loss and injury 

 of the grower. 



Question: Mr. Weinstock, will you please explain to us why Sgobel 

 & Day are anxious to prevent a consolidated auction room? 



Mr. Weinstock: I do not know. I presume they advocate the plan 

 which they honestly believe is best. 



Some gentlemen here are desirous of presenting their views against 

 the consolidated auction room idea. They say the consolidated sales 

 might take too long. The letters I have just read from experienced 

 fruit auctioneers prove that the sales would not take too long; that if 

 necessary, the sales could be begun an hour or two earlier in the morn- 

 ing; and even if the sales should be prolonged beyond 11:30 o'clock, the 

 number of buyers affected are a very small proportion of those who buy 

 California fruits; therefore, it would seem to me that the reasons pre- 

 sented against a consolidated auction room will not stand. The consoli- 

 dated idea is worthy of at least a fair and impartial trial. We had an 

 object-lesson of its value in Chicago this season. You will remember 

 that up to the first of July we never before realized such satisfactory 

 prices in Chicago as during the fore part of this season. During the 

 middle of July the Merchants' Fruit Auction Company started as a 

 Chicago opposition, and from that time on the buyers in Chicago were 

 divided, and a killing of prices followed. 



Mr. Motheral: I understand that from New York to Chicago they 

 had a system of rebates from the railroads, and that it is really a rail- 

 road fight as far as New York is concerned, and that Mr. Day and his 

 company refused to go into this combination, because they feared that it 

 would make a point against them, because they understood that Mr. 

 Earl and Mr. Porter were attempting to control the market for Califor- 

 nia fruits, as they wanted a closed auction for the purpose of selling to 

 jobbers and retailers. What is the truth on that point? 



Mr. Weinstock: The answer to that is this: On the one hand, it was 

 charged that the reason why the West Shore terminal had been selected 

 as a consolidated salesroom for New York was that Porter and Earl 

 were interested and were getting a rebate from the West Shore. 



Question: If they got any rebate, did any of it ever reach the grower? 



Mr. Weinstock: If they got any rebate, I don't think the fruit- 

 growers got any of it. On the other hand, it was maintained that 

 Sgobel & Day had a better proposition from the Erie, and took the first 

 opportunity to withdraw from the West Shore and ship over the Erie, 

 because there was more in it for them. I have done everj^thing that is 

 possible for any one person to do to find out if there is any truth in 

 either of these charges. Speaking for myself, I don't believe that Messrs. 

 Sgobel & Day have received a penny from the Erie Railroad Company 

 for shipping over their line. Nor do I believe that either Mr. Earl or 

 Mr. Porter has received a penny for shipping over the West Shore. I 

 believe that when they voted in favor of the West Shore Company they 

 voted in favor of what they believed to be the best road, and the proof 



