The closure of Trimingham?s was not a result of its merger with rival retailer HA&E Smith, according to former president Eldon Trimingham.

In a letter to The Royal Gazette (see Page 4), Mr. Trimingham ? who stepped down from Trimingham?s seven years ago ? said he wanted to dispel a misconception raised in a letter from M. Cox in Saturday?s paper.

A longtime proponent of Government doing away with duty for retailers in place of sales tax, Mr. Trimingham said the duty structure was more at fault for Trimingham?s failure than its ?merger? with Smith?s. In the letter, M. Cox charged that ?greed? was to blame for the company?s demise ? not Government, not the economy.

The takeover of Smith?s was ?a very big band-aid that only added to the problem?, wrote M. Cox. However, Mr. Trimingham said the ?merger? with Smith?s was not a case of ?greed? but a deal designed to enable two struggling stores to make a go of it together.

In specific he said joining with Smith?s was ?intended to achieve four sound objectives: the elimination of one entire management expense structure; the combining of two similar department structures into single, much larger entities with twice the merchandise selection in each; a geographic layout where customers would find a full, US scale, selection all under one roof and buying power and influence with suppliers to achieve better vendor prices ? and lower retails and enhanced volumes as a result?.

Mr. Trimingham pointed out that Island retailers ? unlike sellers of commodities that can only be sourced here such as groceries, petrol, liquor and pharmaceuticals ? were really competing against shops overseas. He said this was a proposition made difficult by retailers paying out in excess of 15 percent more for goods compared to the prices paid by US competitors. The merger with Smith?s, he said, was designed to cut expenses but not quality, ambience and volumes. The only alternative was closing down.

?The execution of [the Smith?s merger] required careful planning and above all keeping to a completion timetable. As it turned out, one interminable delay after another ? all of them beyond our control ? set this timetable further and further back, wasting money and building debt to the point where it became obvious that the plan as a whole could not succeed,? Mr. Trimingham said.

He said letter-writer M. Cox?s suggestion that it would have been better to ?pare down? was not a reasonable alternative for the retailer post-merger, given the considerable amount of space in question, and many employees.

?The space could not be subdivided except at enormous expense to conform to today?s regulations. The employees had a better chance, by far, of real promotion opportunities in the combined entity. M. Cox?s fond memories of childhood (they are ours? too) were in the time when we could and did sell all the classifications mentioned way below US prices ? and Bermuda was a tourist Mecca.?

But Mr. Trimingham concluded that this was ?before the UK, Canada and the US slashed their duty structures and converted to sales taxes and VAT to lower their costs of living. We in Bermuda failed to follow this example and long term it has cost us our tourist business and ? incidentally ? Triminghams?.