The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 853, 19 March 1877, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1877.

A correspondent, a few days ago, complained that the price of bread was still as high as when flour—and good flour too —was at tip-top rates. And we do not wonder at the remark. During the late controversy between the bakers and the consumers, on the subject of the increase in prices, some good arguments, perhaps, were made use of by the baking fraternity. But they certainly do not hold water now, and we cannot conceive the reason why bakers do not keep to their implied promise made at the time, that as flour went up or down, so would their charges for bread fluctuate. Another far more serious subject for complaint is now heard on many sides. It is broadly stated by a number of people who have given serious consideration to the matter, that a large proportion of flour made of new damaged wheat has found its way into some of the bakeries, and is being daily used. Of course it is well known that a considerable portion of the wheat crops suffered severely this year through sudden climatic change, which came in most inoportunately during harvest time. We cannot conceive a more disgraceful trick of trade than that of utilising flour made of wheat ground in a condition which renders the article of food most unwholesome and even dangerous. We are not aware what police supervision may do in the matter, but we hope that means do exist of checking so abominable a practice. Bread is sold just now at prices sufficiently high to warrant the public in demanding that they shall be supplied, in exchange for their money, with something sound and wholesome. Now is the time for another raid by the analytical branch of the police upon the retailers of the indispensable stafl’ of life. Harmless adulteration is bad enough, but the use of deteriorated flour cannot be excused for one moment.

The following paragraph appears in the columns of a morning contemporary —“ The Council of the Acclimatisation Society.—lt was currently reported on Saturday that at a private meeting of the Council, several members had tendered their resignation in consequence of the action of the Government in refusing to alter the date of the opening of the duck shooting season, in accordance with the resolution passed at the last meeting of the Council held at the gardens.” We sincerely hop* the above information is incorrect The public can ill afford to lose th i services of so patriotic a body as the members of the Council of the Acoh-

matiaation Society. Have they not secured to the province at large — never mind if it was at the expense of tbeirlate curator—a quantity of English salmon which in future years may add greatly to the wealth oi the province and the colony. Did they not do their best to extend the area of their domain—never mind if it was at the expense of convalescent patients at the hospital—and they only yielded, after using every means in their power to frighten the Domain Board into submission. Their later effort for the public good has been equally unsuccessful. It is whispered, indeed, that the changes which they proposed were entirely in the interests of wealthy sportsmen. Were the changes proposed, suggested by the society iu the interests of acclimatisation, we would have nothing to say against them. But it is well known that the opinions of many of large experience are entirely opposed to those expressed at the meeting at which the resolutions in favor of the change were carried. We therefore think the Government have acted wisely in refusing to comply with a request which would place the opening of the shooting season some weeks after the Easter Holidays, and thus deprive the general public of the opportunity of enjoying their share of a sport which for many years in Canterbury has always been looked forward to at this season of the year.

The ratepayers of the city of Wellington find themselves very much in the same position as those of Christchurch do with reference to the erection of a Town Hall. But there is a difference. Here we have a scheme placed before us, which our councillors assure us, if we would only believe them, will cost us nothing at all. There the City Council wish to commit the ratepayers to an expenditure of something like £IO,OOO. But beyond urging the advantages of possessing such a building in the Empire City, no other inducements are held out. It is not attempted to be shown that the municipality will make by the transaction. The property of no private citizen is to be confiscated for the benefit of the city at large. Yet in spite of the well known desire of the inhabitants of Wellington get their city recognised as the leading one of the colony in every respect, the scheme meets with almost universal condemnation, and is generally denounced as a piece of “ monstrous folly and extravagance.”