CORRESPONDENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1892, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE WEIGHT OF BREAD.

AN UNJUST LAW.

•'lnjustice to one is a menace to all."

(To bho Editor.)

Sib,— King Pharaoh had a baker and ho hanged him. Succeeding ages have concluded from this that the baker is a bad lot, and have treated him accordingly. Ho has been subjected to special harassing legislation for centuries past, the climax of injustice being attained by a New Zealand Liberal Government in the 19th cenbury.

We are filled with Christian indignation at the persecution of the Jews in_Rus3ia. The persecution of a section of our own community by an arbitrary human enactment called law excites no comment. To go back to the time of Pharaoh, it was enacted that the jews should make bricks without straw. The amendment (?) to the Adulterabion Prevention Act, 1891, is on a par with bhis historical oppression. To guarantee the exact weight of particular loaves after cooking is as übberly impossible as bo make bricks without material. Truly the bakers of New Zealand will havo to wish that they had been mercifully hanged rather than harried and badgered out.of existence by class legislation. s Sir, it is perfectly safe to assert bhab nowhere else in the British Empire are bakers—or, indeed, any obher body of traders—subjected to such unjust and arbitrary conditions as those contained in the so-called amendment. The reason assigned for ibs passing—given by bho Post-master-General of the colony, who introduced the measure—is vicious in the extreme and totally ab variance with the principle underlying yood government. Here is the reason, which I quote from " Hanzard :"—" That under the law as it then stood inspectors were unable to obtain convictions." This is a plain avowal from a Crown Minister that the supreme object of an Act is tho manufacture, of criminals, and this is Liberal legislation 1 This amendment requires that loaves shall be made an exacb weight of bwo pounds, and bho Inspector can enter a shop cr stop a bread cart and prefer a charge for any loaf in tho baker's shop or cart nob weighing two pounds. The baker is cited to appear and answer to bhis diabolical crime, and though ho may profess his inability to comply wibh the absurd requirements ot the Act, and though he may bring bakers of long experience to prove tho utter impossibility of ensuring the exact weight of particular loaves, he is heavily fined, and emerges from the Police Court," his good name stained, his honesty impugned, and the taint of a criminal clinging to him.

Now. what is the law in England ? There it is enacted thab " bread must be sold by weight," that is.household or batch broad. Fancy bread i 3 exempt from this provision, and no particular weights of loaves are specified. Next, note the difference in mode of procedure on tho part of tho English inspectors. There the inspector must make a bona fide purchase of a loaf of bread, and further, ho must ask for a half-quartern or lib loaf, and if 2lb of bread are tendered—ib may be all in one loaf, or a piece may be be cut from another loaf to make good any deficiency—the inspector has done his duty ; ho has no power to seize and weigh any other loaf than the one ho buys and pays for, and if he merely for a loaf of bread tho baker cm hand him any loaf without incurring an offence.

Tho following just and equitablo decision given by Mr Justice Hannen, set:, at rest the question of fancy bread. Xc Raid : " The main object of the Legislature was to protect tho general public in the purchase of household broad. This bread has a smaller surface exposed, from which evaporation and consequent loss of weight can take place, but it was noo thought necessary to protect in the same way thoso persons who desired to havo a more costly bread, and therefore the baker was oxomptod from selling by weight that kind of loaves, which, b ; i being baked apart,, occupy more space in the oven, and. lose more of their -weight by evaporation." In delivering judgment on an appeal by tho Crated Bread Company on tho same point, Mr Justice (now Lord) Blackburn said : "I think my brother Justice Batmen's opinion is tho correct one."

There ia more to be said, and tho importance o f the subject must be my excuse for writing at such length. 1 shall crave space for .mother letter, and concludo with the opinion thab as the matter of bringing hop beer under tho provisions of tho Beer Duty Act was deemod worthy of editorial comment, surely this is not less so. There have already been five convictions under tho amendment, and Sergeant Gamble might easily convict every baker in tho city every day in the wook. Whab do you, Mr Editor, think of ib?—l am, etc., « Am'd. Cowley, Wellington-street.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Permit me through your columns to draw the abbenbion of the Auckland Master Bakers' Association, and through that body bho attention of the bakers of New Zealand generally, to a letter signed " Fair Play," under the above heading, in your issue of Saturday last. I think, "air, most sensible men will agree with " Fair Play " that the presenb stuto of the law regarding the sale of bread is nob only " unfair and a crying injustice" to honest, hardworked tradesmen, but is also a form of persecution, which is an abominable disgryoe to the New Zealand Statute Book. Admitting the unquestionable right of the public to their full due, 1 hold, sir, that the bread trade, owing. to an innumerable host of contingencies not touched on in "Fair Play's " remarks, requires special treatment ot a di'ioret.t type to that laid down in tho Adulteration of Foods* Act. Owing to atmospheric and lermontativo irregularities over which i.o human being can nave full control, it is a matter of impossibility to have all the different shapes of bread exactly 21b. 41b, 61b or Rib. as demanded by the Act. It is a real pity, sir, that our noble legislators cannot, during tin. temporary intervals between their struggles for the Government benches, give the country something better for their honoraria.

Three or four times during my experience in the history of bhe trade has the law been changed, and if cot tain definite principles (common sense for one) are nob brought to bear, it may go on to bo tinkered ab with equally unsatisfactory and disheartening .esults. Owing to tho afore-mentioned irregularities there are already sufficient inherent perplexities in the manufacture and sale of bread under the mosb favourable circumstances, without wantonly heaping on exterior restrictions. In the contemptible, petty prosecutions, based for tho most part on technicalities rather than upon the spirit of the law, which have lately engaged the attention of the R.M. Court-, one feels with a terrible intensity that the iron of oppression has entered the very soul, and as the worm will turn when trodden on, ao must we poor bakers turn, combine, confederate, and move towards having this obnoxious statute repealed.

Time and space will not admit of my recounbing the numerous causes nob touched 011 in " Fair Play's " letter, whereby a loaf may become short weight after having been faithfully "weighed in;" but in conclusion would urge on bhe Associated Master Bakers throughout New Zealand to take action in this matter forthwith.—l am, etc., John Biknie. Coromandel, February 1,1892.