SLAUGHTERING OF PIGS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 982, 24 November 1910, Page 2

SLAUGHTERING OF PIGS.

———4 MR. H. 'G. HILL'S REPLY TO'THE' ; . MINiSTER. .-. ,•- [To tho Editor.] Sir, dealing : fully, -with p thig matter I would like to contradict a statement that is going the rounds, viz., that > I have been ''put up" to write these letters by a certain company, an interested' " party. Such a statement is ■ absolutely without foundation, as no one was more surprised than the company when my. first letter, appealed. It.is .quite true.*, that I have used their figures largely in connection with the matter under discus- . sion. 1 have written solely in-the public interest, and will continue to do so. I notice by this morning's-"Dominion" that the Bill has passed through the House to the "Lords," and it is .with the intention, if possible, of colling public attention to the matter before it becomes ' law that I am writing this letter. ' I am bold enough to make' certain charges against the Government, and wiU substantiate them. . f " (1) The Government is guilty of gross, inconsistency. (2) Is wasting public-funds; and c ■ (3) Is fostering that'which is 8 ; menace/to the public health.. Now for my evidence - (1) If -one had space,- what- could not be written here! TUe, Minister has made so many inaccurate statements' that- I am at a loss to know where to begin tocorrect him.- Briefly, the- position is somethifig'-'like this: Sheep and 'cattlemust be inspected, pigs, need, not; although pigs have from 51 per-, cent-to 10 per cent more disease than sheep and' cattle. I noticed in,last nighfE '/Post'' .that -a xr.au iiad'.becn .prosecuted! for' selling . meat at /Palmerston* withoutsame ■ .having /gohe/through.ia /licensed.. abattoir... ;See the.inconsistency ?,.;.The-Minister-said-in,' icply - to. Mr. Wright/ "The 'figures given .by Mr. Wright -FelaTelTto" a"company which 1 had; had; its -pigs .inspected, not out of 'philanthropy, but to enable' it '<" ' to'engage in trade with, the Old Coun-./' try. - To-say that lam surprised at this - statement is to put it mildly. Why! •Only a few days ago the same Minister f .dealing with the same question, told the . country that .the. regulations -were the same here;-as at Home"; now he. tells us' that this company . had inspection to enable it to send .pigs Home, the inference, of course, being that if they,had not sent. • pigs Home ' they - need not have .had in- - spection. Is not this gross, inconsistency and.contradiction? Let me .translate this marvellous statement into 1910 -English. - The law in this'enlightened'. country in - - the year ..of grace 1910. provides that if ■iny person or company ' sells its'"pork "or bacon to the inhabitants" of the • said enlightened country , it is not necessary- for the pigs'.to -be inspected, but if any per-.:' , son or company wishes to' export' any:' I»rk or bacon." to England .(whbge. regula-V ti ons are • the ■•• same "as ' ours?),, the;. 1 : must be .inspected. Not,--only 'this'i.bto all'' the pigs'that.' kiiled.- in- the factory that are exporting have to be inspected. Our paternal Government., believes in watching the interests of our lovcd ones at Home (b;cause they have to), but wo here —t. - Don't say a word; you'll cause alaTm, says the Hon. Mackenzie. See the - 1 inconsistency? / . , . v . . /: The position with reference to the bom- ■ pany referred to is'this. There were too many pigs in the, country to be consumed -- , within its limits, and the company: were ' faced with two propositions—(l) Close down when they had sufficient for their . local requirements; or (2) export., They " ; . did tho latter, and for the privilege of exporting a trifling quantity they had ! C approximately 1000 carcasses condemned, ,-, at a loss of about iCIoOO. Ihe'alternative? Stop exporting, let the pigs rot on, the farm, and give New Zealanders uninspected pork and_bacon. Nice outlook! . (2) The Bill provides for .compensation/ as under:—Up to 2001b. weight, 2d. -per. lb.; over that weight, Id. per lb. Under ~ the old Bill; tho allowance was' 10s. per pig. This works out at Id. per lb. on 1201b. pigs, but as the average is about 140 to 1501b., the Government are paying from' 1 Si; 4dv t0;205., instead of 10s. If the. Minister" proposed fusing this money to" -pay-for- r stoek that the- Department •} were going- to ,-oondem'n now, Iv wouli be the first.to applaud .their action.-/ But , instead of doing this; , they are asking •the factories to.-.pasteuriso.-the skim,-milk and whey. According to'the-.Minister, four factories have refused to do so; but this'numbei is'sufficient to. warrant./';the . Minister in making the, pasteurising ,com- ' pulsory, and place all on the same level. But even this ho will'not do, although he tells us that this means - of dealing ■with-the by-products will stamp out . the .-' disease in about two years. The Govern- ' ment have been five years fiddling round-' '' with tho thing, and I suppose they will be another five years, and then it will be. • a case of "as you were, before you was." Does' the" Minister seriously 'think' that - - his statement will "go down" with those who know the position?, Does ho mean to tell us . .that -/.pasteurising. , the . ttf-. 'products '.will. cure/.the/disease fiji pigs?' Of ( course it will.not. /So the position ia this: The Government are going to allow diseased pigs 'to' live and propagate, their, ;. kind,.and if :any;of -them are unfortunate/■ enought.to be/killed under inspection and condemned, then' the 1 said Government ■■ will pay 2d.'per lb., out of the /public' purse. .Is net this 'a waste- of public " v money? ' - : . '• ,(3) This is the/vital point. Some years, ago,'.when - the /plague Scarevwas /on/zit.-.;; was hardly safe for. a person to be seen i, going into a chemist's shop, for' fear the officers of the- Health /Department would pounce' on them as-"suspects." We still ■ ■ have the Public Health Act, which/has ,/ ; just been added to, to provide, that the - public shall not be "swindled-by having ./ more than .16 per cent of water in their \"v. butter;, but on the question' of pork, where is the Act? I have seen pigs killed for /'' human consumption -that have" been . so -'V Ijadly diseased "that the sides have been /": so disfigured 'that it was .impossible- to ,- make bacon, and it has been'put into . * sausages.■-. But the Minister hush! \. don't alarm the people. The "Jungle" s and all its exposure of the Chicago : tinned meat business could be equalled here; but .the Government doesn't like the peo- / 'pie "to-know; andsov we ' must/keep quiet/(?). But' what about ; the public -• : liealth? Votes/are worth, more thap that', '. and it is most unfair that anyone should' '. suggest that the Government should legist'' late for the public good when it. mighi . ' cost them a few votes.- / •/. "'. ■ • In all seriousness, I suggest that tte'City/Council, who have been compelled -by lan; to erect abattoirs so as to protect ■the : public .health, and now are confronted with the lJbsition that there is no provision for -the compulsory killing of : pigs at their abattoirs, should call an •indignation meeting to • protest against :tlie Government's, action, and seek to ,'have a - clause inserted by tho Upper House—l am, etc., . v" v . ■ If. G. HILL. : November- 23/