THE MEAT QUESTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 144, 19 June 1906, Page 2

THE MEAT QUESTION.

IO TOT EDITOR. Sir,— l enploso- copy of a letter which I ask -you to publish in the public interest, and which surely you will do, seeing thafe your high position as| watoher of the public interests calls upon you to do so. You oannot, I feel sure, keep from tho public eye evidence brought under your nottice that shows how and why the public aro debarred from obtaining meat at reasonable rates, and how producers are wronged by monopolistic arrangements. •— I am, etc., F. T. MOORE. Johnsonville. D. Sladden, Esq., Secretary Meat Export Company, Wellington. — Dear Sir, — I return herewith receipt for balance freezing account, -which I must accept, though not s.atisfied, because your company claims the right to use "rejects" fo^ its own purposes and pay what value it likes. < The palbry ligure of Id per lb for my preserving beef and the still more paltry price of per lb for the fat and bopes in my S3 "rejected cattle" only amounts to onethird of the money I could have got for this beef if allowed to take it away and sell the same by auction in tho worst market in Wellington. These "rejects" were' ''good second-class l butchers' meat" passed by Goverpment inspector, but too light in weight for my freezing order, and , I wish your directors to know that) the restrictions fcbey place on traders by refusing to allow meat killed in their works to be gold in Wellington justifies me in clamouring for State works. Three years ago I asked you in writing to allow me to slaughter in your works for Wellington, but you refused and) I would noil elect to use disreputable outside premises. —I am, etc, F, T. Mooxe, In fairness to the Meat Company, Mr. Moore's letter was submitted to its secxetary (Mr. Gladden). The latter gentleman informs us that he has replied to Mr. Moore, and encloses for public information a eppy of the lettler. In the oouTse of his reply, Mr. Sladden says that the price allowed for the rejected oattle (33 in number) was as much as they were worth, and the company objected strongly to having to take such an unreasonable number of rejects as 33 out of 58. The average weight of the rejected cattle (4211b) was enough, to show what they were, and the establishment of a State works would certainly have prevented the selling of suoh cattle by auction in Wellington. No doubt the cattle were healthy, but tOiey were poor, and they were U6ed for tbo only purpose <or which lean meat was really fit, namely, for canning and extract. Rejects should only form a small proportion of stock sent! in for freezing, added Mr, Sladden, "and whilst we give a liberal price for Tejected stook in general, it was never intended that large numbers of store cattle or sheep should be forced upon us in the manner that) you have done, lam willing to believe that the bad selection of the cattle was due to defective judgment on your pa-rfc, and tihat it was not your wish to use. the companj to assist you to paljn otf inferior beef under your sale contract ; but I ghould be very glad- if, in future, you would do your freezing with some other company." The letter further added that the company did not like freezing "thix thirdclass quality of beef," and did not freeze meat of a lower standard than it; would offer to a Wellington butcher ; "but if we bad refused to freeze for you the result would have been that you would have clamoured about monopoly and the large concerns crushing tl»e small men." " The letter concludes : "I hope you will not ask us to freeze any more stock for you, V>ut should you do so, I shall iusiet upon your removing all rejects." t