MUNICIPAL MILK SUPPLY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22335, 24 February 1938, Page 7

MUNICIPAL MILK SUPPLY

TO THB EDITOR OF THB PRESS. Sir,—Mr Bliss has proved his inability to answer any of the. questions Which I put to him; I would refer .him fg the last .paragraph of my letter of February 13: “Last, let me say, that, a municipal milk supply WoUld hot bB Breed on the pfeOplfe Of Chl-ifetChUtch: they will have ample opportunity to obtain the full facts for and against, arid will then be. able to judge for themselves. In a democratic community the citizens have the right tO .show their approval of disapproval Of ahy issue By the fpeashre Of suppbft Which they glVe to thfe various carididates for fe-election. And Christchurch Will be rid exception. Oven if fib Other PrOcfedlird is adopted. It rests with the people! to riiake themselves conversant with the issue—private profit against public W HoW e ddes Mr Bliss sdiiatß .this staid-, nidnt with his charge that I admitted that the "object, of the! Trades Hall is to control the GhfisteHufefi milk supply. arid by monopoly manipulate pfice levels, of in Other words, introduce the Russian method .of Socialism. and without a vote, of the people”? Neither did I admit Of state Of infer that the Trades Hall had gny mandate fi’om the people to “socialise the friilk supply.” tn fact I have hot; at ariv time mentioned the Trades Hrill; Neither have I any ■ authority to state what its views of its objects are on this question. Mf Bliss seems to fofget that the Labour Party .is not yet iti cOhtfol Of the council. Perhaps he is anticipating in this respect. It was some of his own party, the Citizens’ Association, who introduced this sUbj6ct. Arid Without their approval it could not have been discussed, seeing that thfe association members at present are in a majority. Mr Bliss, while riot daring to infer that { made a mis^statemerit,'. infers that the public will riot have thfe’ Option of raw of pasteurised Alik in the proposed scheme. I would refer him to page 22 of Mr Herron’s report; “Ir the event of the milk-suoply being municipalised. the only choice! th§ cohsumers would have would be between raw and pasteurised fhilk; each of standard quality.., . ” . But why does Mr Bliss not direct his tirade against the Citizens’ Association? They also supported pasteurisation. Perhaps it is bßcause some of the Citizens’ Association advocated ohe tor tW6) large compgrilfes tO mdflOpbllse the distribution Of pasteurised in Christchurch. Or perhaps he . carl see the writing oh the Wall, and KrioWs Who Will cofttfol the fcOUricil after the riekt riauniclpal election?, ,In any case, if Mf BliSs. as the mouthpiece of vested iritefOstS; Has plit fofWafd thelf best case, the advocates of. municioalisation, whether .Labour Party or Citizens’ Association, have riO Pare to arisWef, The people; 6riC§ they fehdw the. true facts; will know how to vote—for one Taijer comparty or a |ußlicly-c6ri trolled muhitlpal ePtefprise.—YdUfs, etc,. .. . . , HAROLD E. FENTON. February 23. 1938.