THE CONDEMNED MEAT AT THE ABATTOIRS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2310, 9 June 1898, Page 7

THE CONDEMNED MEAT AT THE ABATTOIRS.

WHO IS TO BEAR THE LOSS?

A meeting of farmers, graziers, and bu'chtrs was held at the Chamber of Commerce en Friday night to discuss the question of meat condemned »t the Cifcy Abattoirs. Mr Andrew Todd presided, Mr. Ja». Smith, jun., noted as secretary, and there were -about 70 persons present.

The Chairman stated that the Pastoral Association had been asked to take this matter up and bring it up for consideration, but so lar ie had not had an opportunity of doing so. Now, however, when there wa3 such a number of farmers and graziers in town, it was deemed v fitting time to call a meeting to discuss the question. He might add that some people imagined that no meat had besn condemned before the institution of the abattoirs. That was a mistake, and it was rather unfair to the butchers that such an impression should go forth. Many butchers had suffered severely through meiib being thrown on their hands. Any resolution passed that evening, he mighb further^ say, would not be binding. Tbe meeting wss simply called to discuss the question.

Mr T. t-MiTH tboughl. it was unfair that the butchers should ba called upon to bear tha whole loss of the cattle th*t were condemned. So far us he was personally concerned he thought farmers and should baar onehalf the loss. Farmers and graziers were in v, better position to judge of the ftfcafce of health of the calitle than were butchers. They had the rearing aud tha feeding of them, and if any of the cauls went off their feed they knew perfectly well there must be something wrong.. If they bore one-half the cost it would be only what was fair. In sime parts of Australia the graziers bore a good deal more of the loss than one-half. He moved — " That the loss ensuing from stock condemned at the abattoirs in Dunedin be borne equally by vendor Rnd purchaser, and no claims be rcognised if not made within seven days from the date of purchase."

Br Rakdell seconded the motion.

Mr D Held, sen. : The motion mean 3 that if the claim i» not made within seven days it will not bo recognised.

Mr Murray : That is correct. That's perfectly plain.

Mr A. R. Mohrison, speaking as to the proposal of Mr Smith that butchers and graziers should stand half the cost each, said he thought that everyone should go '"on their cwn." Such an arrangement would not improve the supply of meat, as some wo«ld buy stock that was poor, fortified by the tact that if ib were condemned they would only lose half the. amount. Moreover, if they read the inspector's report, they would see that there was comparatively little meat condemned — only one bullock (and that animal was half -fat), one heifer (and anyone could see that it was unsound), while as to the cows, one had dropped dead in the yard and the other was bought foivpreserving purposep. The condemned bullock was only one in 600, and that would not hurt much. There wete two or three butchers who did not favour Mr Smith's proposition. The best thing they thought was to let matters stand as they were at present, and then the butchers would not buy meat that would be condemned. .As to the bullocks put up for sale at the s&leyards, they had been put "up on condition that if they were rejected the owners stood the loss. They were put up at the owner's risk.

Mr A. Dotjgjlas (Taieri) said that from what was said at the meeting of butchers a short time ago the idea would be conveyed that the agents W6re in league with the butcherß to try and put 'the liability on the farmers. He did not say that was really the case, but that was the way the thing read. He hoped the butchers would not think that the country people were arrayed in opposition to them, and he hoped that the motion moved that night would not be put to the vote, because if carried it would have no weight as a majority vote. The farmers were a sensible lot of men, and had more sense than to fly againstthe butchers. They would be quite prepared, he was sure, to hear a share of the loss if an arrangement could be effected, but to carry out the proposal suggested by Mr Smith would be to create a great; deal of friction. If more meat were rejected than anticipated let the butchers pay a little less to the farmers' or charge a little more to the public. — (Applause.) The country people did not have their me&fe inspected. They had to eat what came before them, and therefore why should they be called upon to pay a share of a system from which they derived" none of the benefits. The consumer benefited from the system, and it was they who should share the increased expense. — (Applause.) Meat was condemned for various reasons. It might be condemned for bruises sustained by the beasts after they left the farmer's hands altogtther. Then, again, the farmers might hare had the cattle in their hands for only a short; time, for the farmers in New Zealand were different to those in the old country, three-fourths of them here were dealers. — (Laughter.) Mr D. Mtjubay eaid that occe the delivery was given there the matter should end go far as the farmer was concerned.

Mr Baebison (Middlemarch) was rather surprised at Mr Smith saying that the grazier was .better able to detect; diseased cattle than the butchers. ThacEaziersbouuht in droves, while

the butcher bought in (smuli peus If the -grazier h*d to pay half of the condemned lofcs there would be great friction. Graziers loafc all the cattle condemned on the feet, »md if they were liable when they were condemned after being killed the ioss would be very great. He thought it unfair, therefore, that the graziers should be asked to stand the loss when tfee cattle changed hands when they were apparently souud. It had been suggested that an insurance fund should be started to meet the loss, but that was objected to by men who always bought good stock. He thought that butchers should use their own judgment, and l«t them gain if they had good judgment, or suffer if they exercised bad judgment. — (Applause.) Mr P. Pattullo thought that the consumers should bsar the loss. Ib was they who gained the benefit. As to the insurance, those who sent in old covrs would pay the same fees as tKose who sent in good stock. Mr J. Oughton, Taieri, said the whole thing was one-sided. It was entirely a butchers' question. He had no sympathy with the matter whatever.

Mr J. Weight said, speaking as a butcher, he preferred to bear hi 3 own loss. — (Applause.) Mr Harbison said a grazier was not in a better position to tell if an animal was diseased than a butcher, but he thought the graziers were in slightly the belter position. However, he preferred to bear his own loss, and he thought a large number of butchers in Dunedin held the same opinion. IE an insurance fund was stirted the man who bought the best stock paid the same fees as those who bought old "crock?." — (Laughter and applause.) Mr Murray (Pukers.u) moved »s au amendment — " Thfct all graziers and dealers c combine together to deteraiine not to pay anything at all." — (Laughter). He had -had considerable experience, and he never bought stock that had to be condemned, because he always bought good stock. There were some who alway« watched for poor animal's. If 4hey' go.t through that was thek profit. — (Laughter and applause.)

Mr A. Kennie said the butchers had to stand the ioss if they sold meat to a customer and it did not turn out all rights He did not think there was any necessity for the meeting afc all. The stock that had any-riuk connected v.ibfa itwas the stock that was doing harm. Meat was advertised at a penny and c. penny h&lf-perfny per pound, and yet a writer describing himself at " Anti-Humbug" wanted to know what had become of the condemned meat hitherto. •

Mr Johnston, Kaihika, was somewhat surprised at the trend of the discussion. The proposal that the batchers and graziers should bear the loss between them nas a fair one, as the " crawlers " he had seen at the sals* thus far would disappear, for no one would fatten or present them for salei

Mr C. Blackwood, Brockvllle, Baid that he had bought apparently sound animals which had afterwards been condemned.

Mr W. Chakteks, Ea-jt; Taieri, said that the statement had been made that if the arrangement suggested wers carried into force farmers would take better care of their young cattle ; but what, ha asked, would rhey do in the case of cattle they bad bought and in the rearing of which they had no hand ?

Mr Smith, in reply, s&'d he thought that it wftß only fair that if he bought a bullock which -had been condemned that he should only be asked to bear half the cos!;. The bullocks referred to which had been killed were apparently fine animals, aud therefore he thought it only fair that in euch oases graziers should meet the butchers half way. As to the proposition that they should giva the' dealers a little less, that would he a very hard thing to do when the bntchers "were bidding one against the other. He suggested that the dealers should give a Yih&e lees when they were buying. As to the bullock which had been condemned, and in connection .with -which a condition was made that the seller should bear half the cost if it were condemned, he might say ib was he who had made that condition, and if he had not the buyer would have had to stand the whole loss. He also heard in connection with this that the inspector had put his mark on it before it was put up for sale, and he asked if that were true why had it been put up for sale. The new institution cf the - abattoirs, he went on to say, was brought about as a result of a public agitation. He hailed the abattoirs with the greatest satisfaction, *nd thought they would be productive of the greatest good to those butchers who carried on their business honestly. He trusted that the farmers and dealers would act generously towards the butchers. It would mean that the farmers would be more careful in the breeding and the rearing, and. therefore diseased animals would he greatly decreased. He did not care if the nvMiioa were carried so long as lbs farmers met them in a generous nmnn&v 11k was fully aware of the difficulties ir» tbv matter, bat ha j was sure that these could bt ovevcoine it the farmers and graziers were detntjained to act equitably towards the butchers. The Chairman said that the agents remained absolutely neutral. There was nothing made up between them and anyone else in any shape or form. As to the motion, the meeting was called naoro for the purpose of- getting en expression of opinion. The Pastor&l Association, the stock agents, and possibly the butchers would again discuss the matter. As they had goo aa expression of opinion from the farmers they had attained.the real object of the meeting, and therefore it was not necessary to put the motion! Under these circumstances this was all the business before the meeting. Before they dispersed, however, there was a J ittle ' ceremony which the butchers desired should take place — namely, a presentation to Mr Grindley, who, they knew, had severed his > connection with the ■Farmers' Agency iCoinpany. Mr Douglas asked that before the formal

business of the meeting had been disposed of could the chairman grant a few minutes for the discussion of another matter of importance to farmers— rnamely, the export dues on frozen meat. He saw a gentleman present who, in connection with that matter, was deserving of the greatest thanks of the farming community. The Chairman s» id that there, were, a lob of those present who desired to get away, and, therefore, da would ask Mr Douglas to defer the matter be mentioned until after the presentation took place.

The Chairman then called upon Mr T. Smith to make tha -