BANKS MEAT CO.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 894, 13 August 1910, Page 3

BANKS MEAT CO.

DEPUTATION TO MAKARft v ; COUNCIL. . j LICENSE UPHELD. ' ■ ' ■ [ A deputation representing Welling-.-ton butchers and contractors at tlie''city,' j. ./ abattoirs waited upon the Makara\v. \ County Council yesterday, to ask that/ / ..'.■ it rescind its resolution in favour of ; .•} a renewal of license to the Banks Meat ■■■'■,'■'■-} Co. .. The deputation consisted of *. ; Messrs. W. C. Hampton, Garrett, Lid- ... ; die, and Helyer. Mr. Hampton stated that a great in- ■.-.: justice would be done to tho butchers V ; of Wellington if the license wero re-'-- ';; newed and tliq Banks Co. were allowed i'.; to compete with tho abattoirs. Owing ." to .the fact'that the amount of work', ;' ■ ,at tho abattoirs did :not come up toj .<' .j anticipations there was a prospect of ■...-.■■'.; contracts bejug thrown up. -If this hap-/; > ; ':- pened,' butchers would havo. : to . pay.- % : : ; more for killing and would get less for;, .-. . i by-products'.than at the present Hiine.v .4 ■ ; > Thoy had Mr. Skorrett's opinion that r: // the company was'not entitled to a li-/ ' ■■} cense, and there would be no "backing!' ■'■ ■" down" on the part of the council if it-.-" ■ i rescinded its former resolution, su]>- '"■■•■ ' porting tho license. . . : .■'.., ~ '; ■. \k9'-'--•Mr. Garrctt, speaking for the con- '■,:;!, tractors r took it that there could new.' '■'■■'.:', be no question of tho legality.of the-'"-. , matter. A grave injustice was being,: ' done to the contractors. . Moreover, ifl -;:■,' they wero'obliged to throw' up tiieirj / ;,, contracts, butchers would' be. compelled;'':'. : to pay almost double the present price' - for killing. .Tho of stock.';, ' •brought forward was much less.; than. .. i the contractors had been led to antici- ..; ■ pate. They liad gone on, understanding .■"■ : > that-as soon as the ahattoir was in. : ■; '•■ oxistenco tho Banks Meat Co. would; ;; close down.' ; ,:■, ' Messrs. Liddlo and Helyer support-' ed these statements. . .... ~; .. ■.':.■; ■: Mr. Mooro expressed stho opinioii thai ..i the Slaughtering and Meat Inspectipa' . !• Act had been broken over since it be- ■'■'-■ came law. _It was a- most imperfect:'. ; - ■'.'■■ Act. For instance, it; teok no cognis- :-.'■ ■'; ance of one of the most unhealthy.ani- ■•'.■'•'•; mals used for food—the hog. The City/- ' Council had broken this Act sinoo 1900 '' '■ wlien they neglected to': establish an. : : abattoir. The works 'of the Banks y '■'.'.' Co.", had been erected . under ' tho •■'. J sanction of Hie Votorinarj' Depart-. '■ Lment, _ and tho comity had. grantedi:'\ this license along with two others:?'.' ■'■■■ From one of the establishments W- ■: question a Government institution;?: '■■'." (Porirua) was supplied. In his opin-i. j, . ion the county should not havo power/"- ; to grant licenses. It shonld be in tho/T : abattoir district, and tho law was ai .': <: fault in restricting the abattoir. area, 'z'; To revoke the license granted in one. .■' particular instance when it/could not V be done in all instances 'would placoKz"-' the'council in' a peculiar position. .Theiv' >. j position of the contractors.at the , abai-' toirs was undoubtedly'unfortunate, bub . the council had to consider the labour- : ■' ors. at the other slaughter-liouses as' , ■ - ' well as those working at the abattoirs! ■'; :r The essential question was that of. pub-r ; / He health. In his opinion the, Banks'•''. : '\ Meat Company truly contended that the ..' public-health would.not.be prejudicially, ; ; ; affected by their continuing in. business.','' ■ vi Therefore, this seemed no ground for ' "• rescinding the •license... ■ '...:.■'..'■■■_ ~ .4 Mr."Hamptun stated'that-the. ; com-: .'■( pany clearly failed to comply with tho' .lan-,-'as was shown by "' Mr. Skerrett's; .. .'■'. opinion. . ■■-. . ... . .■;■ ..'. Mr. Moore replied that in regard toi. '.-'' its principal business bejug that of ax-r '-'' port,' the company, evidently failed toj : : comply with the law, but 'if the Minis'-] '' 'i ter considered this a weighty consider»r| .- 1 tion, ho could exercise his power' o£l . .veto. . ■'"-.."'■ • '•' ' ■'■ /'Mr; Garrott remarked that the'Min-j' r' ister could not cancel the license until' the abattoir had been erected. More-j ■■' .over, the company had at first carried?' on an export busines.s. Their licensoi ■. '■■ should' have expired like'that of olher. V; butchers' when ■ the . abattoirs we're; i erected. , ' ' . ' / Mr. Moore said the Banks Company claimed that.their Ayithdrawal.ffom.thol', .■'{ meat export business was purely torn-; . ■ porarjy and that they would resume" ' ; during tho coming yeaiV 'I ■ ./ .'' Mr. Garrott:,They told : tho," Cityl . ■ Councilthat they were not going -'to 5 -■'■':[ freeze. . '. - " ■■■<■ ■ ■•:.: ;■• Mr. Moore said that it was the con-'".-. '-i; tention of the company that if they,', , ,;■■ were compelled to close down now it! '■'j would kill their only hope "(if resuming:' ''■ export business. . / ./ ..'.'■•".'/-: ■ Mr./ Hampton: '.'lf they were' an ex- ■ - ;i port.corapauy now it might affect their '■ business to withdraw the license, ■ but T since', they are '.hot, : it cannot : atttci : them."" .'"'. / ' " . ' : • ■■■'. ■'■ ...'"•' ■':■.'[ Mr.. Moore remarked that losing - ; ; their license, the company-would lose " 'H its local'business. The strict reading of; ■ ) tho Act was against the company,-but '--: there was:-the fact that nearly.every- : '; ; body in the country .had broken-the'-., : '' Act. : ■■• .'.■ •• .• '-"."• ■■: / ■.-.-

Mr. Garrett stated that the 'com- '"'■'; pany was running in competition with ■■■'■ the abattoirs. The: butchers ■would' not-. ? object if the Banks Company killed" for' itself and' let natural ■ supplies fW:-io the abattoirs. . . .: ' : At this stage the deputation' thank--ed tho. council and-withdrew; '..'.'/.;".',V'.'•':;-. Mr. Moore then moved that, the couii- . cil reaffirm its former resolution, leaving it to tho Minister to approve or approve. The onus-of. killing this com-:'j pany should-not rest, on the council; ■';'■:■'' Councillor 'Haggerfcy said that, the : : chairman evidently had a feeling for:' tho Banks Meat Company; As *a mat-.-tor of fnet, tho council had'exceeded its. powers. . The license had- not been ■ submitted- to the Secretary for. Agri-': : culture, as provided in. the. Act.' His , contention, was: that'neither the City/' Council nor the county had (power 'to* ; issue this license. ', ' . "■.'.-:•'■ ■ An amendment by Councillor Hag- ' gerty that tho motion 'renewing tho li-, • censo bo rescinded was lost, and tlie following motion, proposed by ■ tlie : chairman, ,was, carried: That this coun- . : cil reaffirm its action in. granting a li- ■' cense to.the Banks Meat Company, the ' public 'health being in no way,- affected; 'by the grauting T o? this license. ~ ' >..