POOR, DIRTY MILK

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3123, 29 June 1917, Page 6

POOR, DIRTY MILK

FIRM IN TROUBLE CITY COUNCIL .ACTION REVELATIONS IN DISCUSSION A long discussion on the subject of Hie renewal of three milk shop <uid ilairy licenses- which had been held by a city milk-vending livni occurred at last evening's meeting of the Wellington City Council. Councillor I!. A. Wright, chairman of the Public Health Committee of the council, esiid the committee hail given tho matter consideration, and had heard the firm's solicitor. The committee recommended that the question be held over for three months in order that the conduct of the firm during such period could be .iscerlaiiH'd and considered. The iirm had had quite a ..number of prosecutions for faulty milt, and was called on to show cause' niiy its licenses should not be eaiic-elled. Tho firm pleaded that it wiis not to blame, and that its .sources of supply were. It was u serious thing to cancel a license outright, so the committee had given the. firm three months, and in that time the committee would observe what occurred.

Councillor A. R. Atkinson said he did not see brnv the council could let this mutter pass without stultifying all it had ever dbno to ensure a supply of pare milk to the city. Information in tho ■hands of the council showed that in a period of ten months US samples of this firm's milk had been.■ taken, 38 were found deficient, there were ten prosecutions, and 26 warnings. Councillor litzgexuld: Againet the one firm?. Councillor Atkinson: Againet the one firm whose license we are asked to renew without question.

Strike a Blow for Pure Milk. Councillor Atkinson said tliafc details of the 3G deficient samples were:— Low m fat. 10; dirty. 8; not fresh, 18. Ho added th«t of another arm's milt 110 saw pics w»re taken, ten were found deficient, there were- six prosecutions, and four warnings. Still another vendor had 01 wimples taken. Nineteen wero deficient, mid there vvero four prosecutions and 15 warnings. must not flinch from carrying out its duty. A fine would not be effective; n big company would go on paring fines, but a refusal of a license would be vital. No greater blow could be struck for the purity of our milk supplv. . , , , , CbuncUlor '.T. Castle congratulated Coucillor Atkinson on "at last wa king up to his responsibilities in. regard to the milk.qn&stion." It was a pity, he added, that Councillor Atkinson had not spoken like that at the committee meetin" Tbo milk vendors were at big disadvantages in the matter of their supplies, and tfiat emphasised the need lor the council doing something to ensure that the nxilk- went out pure to tho vendors. As tilings stood it seemed unfair to penalise one firm by refuging it licenses when there was only a degree of difference between its record and the record of otEer firms. Councillor Atkinson: Fifty per cent, of difference. ■ Councillor-Fitzgerald said that, while he disliked to fee a man heavily penalised, a firm which had such a record as the firm tinder discussion should not be given licenses. Wellington should feel indebted to Councillor Atkinson for tho stand he had taken. Councillor Atkinson moved us an amendment: that the firm's application for renewal of a license be not granted. Councillor Fitzgerald seconded the amendment:. Councillor W. .T. Thompson hoped the nmcndnhnt would he defeated. Ofher Cases Should be Investigated. Councillor W. 11. P. Barber supported the amendment. He could not. understand the Public Health' Committee wishing to grant a- license to a firm whose record was so bad that it had been repeatedly fined, and whose milk the Magistrate considered so bad that had ordered facts arising out of the Court proceedings to bo advertised. Councillor M'Kenzie said if it was a, single individual who was, concerned he would have "gone out" by now, but, because the applicant was a. company, the committee was looking somewhat leniently on the matter. The last man dealt with was a. single individual, and he "went out neck, and crop." If the farmer was the original trouble, the. council should get rid of tho vendors who were afraid to oppose the farmers. Councillor C. B. Norwood =«i<l the reports showed a most disgraceful state of things, and he could not understand why thore was not a batch of milk vendors before the council instead of ouly onc. The evidence before tho council should condemn a number oC firms. He did not know quite what to do in the matter in view of the unfairness of dealing with the one firm and allowing others to go free. Councillor G. Frost said he agreed with Councillor Norwood, and thought it would be well to send the recommendation back to the committee with a view to having a number of the licenses considered at: the next meeting.

Councillor ifildretii was in agreement with Councillor Frost, but he thought the position of this firm was so bad that he would vote for Councillor Atkinson's amendment. '

Tho Mayor (Mr. J. P. Luke) said he would support the 'amendment. If other cases were brought before the council they could deal with them also. Councillor Wright .-aid the attitude the committee took up was dictated by the fact that the was satisfied that the firm was not really 'iu fault, and that it was not the firm which ik'e-tored the milk it vended. A vote was then taken on Councillor Atkinson's amendment, williMhe following result: — Ayes: The Mayor, Councillors Barber, Atkinson, Fitz»erald. Frost, Hildrelh, Liifkie, and M'Kenzie. Noes: Councillors Castle, fiodber. Norwood, Shorland, Thompson, nnd Wright. Councillor -J. G'odlier then moved, and Councillor ,T. 0. Shorland seconded, that the firm slioiild Iμ willed on to show pause why its application for renewal of its licenses should not be refused. This new amendment wus adopted without opposition.