THE COST OF CONDEMNATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14898, 29 July 1910, Page 4

THE COST OF CONDEMNATION.

The discussion at the meeting of farmers and graziers held at Burnsidc on Wednesday to consider the question of the loss arising out of the condemnation of careases lit the City Abattoirs was chicfly remarkable for the fact that several of the speakers revealed a conviction that they are suffering under a burden which ought to be borne by the ratepayer of Dunedin. The inspection of meat at, the Abattoirs is a process that naturally is subsequent to a transaction between the grazier and the butcher covering the sale and purchase of stock, and, when a carcase is condemned, there is a loss to be borne which by arrangement does not fall wholly on the butcher, for the seller in such a case refunds him half of the purchase money. It is certainly a fair argument" that the 'buyer' should not be called upon to stand the >vhole loss of the price of a purchase proves to be worthless for the purpose it was destined to serve. As it is. he does not appear to have in any way the best of the situation. The graziers are, however, evidently labouring under a sense of real grievance, though, so far as the matter has been explained by themselves, the worst feature of their •position would appear to be the lack of an absolute guarantee that the animals upon which they are asked to refund a portion of the purchase money are really those sold by them. If this matter is considered serious, however, it remains to be shown that it would be impossible to contrive that there should he a more' effective system of discrimination. If a satisfactory scheme of insurance, operating jointly between the graziers- and the butchers or applicable to the latter only, <ts in a measure provided for by legislation, could be evolved, we should no doubt hear no more about these grievances. • i3ut the point that arrests attention is the discovery' of the iniquity of the city ratepayer, who is lield responsible for'the fact that animals intended for food have to undergo rigid inspection and are condemned if unfit for food, and who reaps all the benefit of liis escape from

'buying an undesirable article of diet. The argument of the grazier that the townspeople—that is to say, the ultimate purchasers of the meat—should cheerfully pay the loss, or any part of tho loss, created by tho fact that the grazier has sold an animal unfit for human consumption seems to us to involve a very curious reasoning process. It is virtually equivalent to saying that the' consumer is responsible for the quality of the grazier's etock and .that Tie should pay for .that which is unfit for him to buy. The unreasonableness of tho grazier in thus endeavouring to fasten on the public, upon -which he is dependent, a liability in respect of risks which should be considered only the natural and necessary accompaniment of his business seems sufficiently apparent. Such a liability might be insignificant enough as a burden upon tlie ratepayers, but, on principle ita repudiation is certainly called for. Resentment on the part of farmers at a system under which they have to bear some loss in connection with meat that is condemned is only less unreasonable than the attitude which some, at least, of them apparently assume towards the wise system that makes it compulsory that all carcases intended for human consumption shall be carefully inspected. The suggestion of devising, as one speaker put it, " some fair and equitable method whereby the people of? Dunedin should bear the cost" is at once ingenuous and amusing. We may, in all humility, hazard the conjecture that tlie people of Dunedin, whose meat-eating propensities the grazier should' regard with satisfaction, meet in full measure all their obligations in this matter in their dealings with the but-cher.