LICENSING THE SALE OF MEAT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5193, 19 October 1927, Page 2

LICENSING THE SALE OF MEAT.

(To the Editor.)

Sir—l take the opportunity your paper offers to protest against the finding of the Borough Council at their last meeting concerning an application made for a license to sell meat. In this the councillors- chose to over-rule the Health Inspector’s decision. The subject of the controversy seems to be as to whether or not the applicant’s, premises are suitable for the purpose of storing meat. This is a ve-ry important question, as meat is one of our staple foods; and particular care should lie exercised in handling it. A very important branch of the Health Department’s work consists in seeing that the rn&at is stored and served to the public in the moot sanitary manner possible. Our health inspectors are, men who have been trained in their particular work in accordance with the teachings, of the highest authorities on the matter. It ill-becomes our councillors, therefore, to set at naught the opinions of the inspector in question. Certainly it is not in the best interests, of the public that they should do so. One could well imagine them being up in arms if an authority on health matters was, to attempt to tejich them their particular businesses. As, the Mayor (Mr Marshall), who with Mr Hare seem to be the only sane members on the council, pointed out, it certainly is not fair to the Health Department, whose word, in such cases, sihould be Anal. Cr. Pprritt seems to have, been the prime mover in obtaining the permit, and the rest of the councillors have followed his lead without attempting to consider the pros and cons of it. Now, I find it Ihard to believe that this’ councillor, whose profession is well known, should be so altruistic as to go to all the trouble that he evidently has, for the sake of helping an oppressed (?) citizen. It seems to me that it should be a prohibited act for a person to approach any particular councillor in such a manner, for it could not but make him biased towards, the other’s interests. We would then, perhaps, not have the present glaring instance of a councillor pleading - a client’s Case as at a court-at-law.

Tihe main plea in favour of the applicant seems to have been that he was not getting a fair deal and was being deprived of a means of obtaining a livelihood. His so staunch supporters should have considered another side to the question, and it is this : That by granting the license they are countenancing an unfair competition in that particular trade, for how could one expect other tradesmen, who are obliged to have expensive premises in accordance with the latest health regulations, to compete with one whose initial expenses would be so low ? Then, again, it is not by any means fair to the town; for while brick areas and many kindred regulations have been enforced with tihe object of causing tradespeople to erect buildings that will not reflect to the discredit of the town, the very men who have been responsible for these regulations now deliberately encourage one to edge by them. ■

Tihe Mayor must be congratulated on his stand in the matter, for it shows that we have the right man at the helm, who has the rqal interests of the town at heart, and. is not afraid to voice his 1 opinions concerning them. The welfare of the mass must always .come before that of the individual, and it isi the bounden duty of our councillors to keep this in mind and, if they have any consideration for’the health of the general public, to oblige this particular individual to erect premises that will meet with the approval of the Health Department. FAIRPLAY.