FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1892.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1892, Page 2

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1892.

When referring to the Factories Act the other day we pointed out that, although restrictive legislation is necessary to modify the crushing down tendencies of grinding competition and to protect workers and the public from the tyranny and fraud of unscrupulous men, it is extremely inadvisable to interfere more than is absolutely necessary with the liberty of the subject or to authorise irritating intermeddling with private or business affairs. The outcry which has been made by the bakers regarding the recent prosecutions under the " Adulteration Prevention Act" of last session, is an example of the danger that attends parliamentary interier-

| ence with trade affairs. It by no : means follows, however, that because | mistakes may be made, the Legislature ! should temain inactive. The lessen | taught simply indicates the need for ex- | treme caution when enacting measures i which bear upon business interests and j involve considerations of a technical j character. i Two letters from experienced bakers, ! published in other parts of to-day's j issue, state so fully the technical bearI ings of the law that we need not enter | into the discussion of the subject at i any length here. . There is undoubtedly a good deal to be said why the pan loaf should not be subjected to I precisely the same standard as- batch ! bread, which occupies a smaller space |in the oven and loses considerably less | weight by evaporation. On the other | hand, considering the very huge pro- : portion of the bread supply which con-

ststs of pan loaves, it would seem an anomaly it a baker could not be compelled lo givethe atnountof bread which form:-; the distinct basis of the contract between himself and his customer when supplying bread in this particular form. Although high legal authorities

in England appear to have upheld the contention that pan loaves come within the category of fancy bread, we are inclined to dissent from the principle of such a law. We think it very much preferable that the baker shall Le required to give full weight, leaving it open for him to recoup any 'oss by charging a slightly higher price.

Nevertheless, the bakers have a very serious grievance, and, indeed, are subjected to gross injustice undsr the new law, in consequence of the omission from its clauses of the provision which exists under the English Act enabling a vendor ot bread to make good shortness in weight by the addition of a piece from a cut loaf. It is utterly impossible for a baker dealing with batch loaves to secure absolute uniformity of weight when the bread is withdrawn from the oven. The difficulty with pan loaves is still greater. The law, therefore, as it stands, compels the baker either to detraud himself by providing in every case an excessive margin for loss and selling on the average bread that is over-weight, or else expose himself to prosecution as a law-breaker. Moreover, there is a continuous loss of weight in bread by evaporation even alter its withdrawal from the oven, and a loaf which is full weight when it leaves the baker's shop in tbe morning may, during warm summer weather, be pounced down upon by the inspector as light bread when being carried round in the delivery cart during the course of the same afternoon, The law thus sets a net for a whole class of tradesmen, from whose meshes escape is impossible if the inspector chooses to carry out the strict letter of the law.

The systematic perpetration of frauds by unscrupulous bakers in the sale of light-weight bread has been too fully proved, both here and in Great Britain, to justify any relaxation of the laws which enforce honest weight in the vending of this important article of human food. Such laws are as necessary for the protection of honest tradesmen as for the prevention of robbery upon the public; but while this position can never be receded from, the law ought assuredly to be enforced in such a way that bakers can comply with its provisions without serious inconvenience to themselves or t'tieir customers. The proviso contained in the English Act seems to meet all the requirements of the case, and its omission from the New Zealand law was a grave oversight.