WATERLOGGED BUTTER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 174, 26 August 1909, Page 3

WATERLOGGED BUTTER.

A SERIES OF INTERVIEWS. LOCAL MERCHANTS' OPINIONS. In conversation with Mr. J. R. Cruickshank, the New Zealand representative of Messrs R. Collett and Co., who figured as a defendant yesterday morning in the case brought bv the Agricultural Department for attempting to export butter containing too much water, 11 '•Daily News" reporter gathered the impression that Mr. Cruickshank felt that he and his linn were being unjustly penalised, anil that the Agricultural department was prosecuting the wrong party. "We were prosecuted," he went on to say, "for attempting to chip this butter. The Act is altogether one-sided, We as exporters bought this butter iu

good faith, from two local dairies. On being analysed by the Department, it was found to contain over the limit of moisture, aud we are the party that is straightaway penalised. We have to pay the penalty for circumstances over which we have no control. In tnis instance we have taken the prosecution otY the shoulders of the farmer. For the last live years liis Sna had been drawing attention to this excessive moisture in butter, with a view of having the export of this sort of butter stopped, and had done all they could, he said, to assist tho Department in the matter. "The responsible party is the man who makes the butter, and not the persons to whom the butter is sold. You see, all our butter has to be graded by the Government. That's NewZealand jaw. and the English trade has been taught to look upon the* Government grade marks as a soft of guarantee. of ; quality." The English Groc.-r, the official organ of the produce business in the Old Country, had the following in a rcceut issue:— "It is unnecessary for us to poi:it | out the great hardships which wouMj be inflicted on both the retailer and J the importer of the butter at thiSj end should either be prosecuted for selling any of this water-logged commodity. because both have been relying on what the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand pro-! duccr have «o continually pointed outl as being a great safeguard, namoiyj that the butter is all Government I graded. It is very difficult to undor-. stand why the Government shou'd issue graders' certificates for this butter (which is equivalent to a guarantee of purity) wheji they have the, knowledge through their own analyst that so much of the butter in New Plvraoutli and Auckland is showing an excess of moisture. The season for New Zealand butter is now nearly over, but is well to look ahead, and to press for the necessary reforms.*' "That's tlic English view of the matter." paid Mr. Cruickshank. He ftent on vo 'say that since 1907 his firm had repeatedly pointed out to the Department j of Agriculture ti/e necessity for check-1 ing the export of butter containing over K) per cent, of moisture. And now the Department came along and dropped on the exporters." The matter was one of the greatest importance to every merchant dealing in New Zealand butter, and it was opportune to discuss what steps the Government, could take to put the' thing on a proper basis. It would be a very difficult matter for V private firm exporting New Zealand butter to analyse every box. In fact, such a system was impracticable. "What seems to me peculiar is this," he said. 'The Government grades the butter for quality, and affixes its grade stamp, first or second, as the case may be. If butter contains more than 16 per cent. of. moisture, it is to all intents and purposes »n adulterated article, and not butter at| all. Why should the Department affix: ( a first-grade stamp to an article that 1 isn't butter, which they know to be an adulterated article? In the eyes of the English law, and it is the English law under which most of our butter is retailed, butter with over 16 per cens. of water is an adulterated commodity, yet it is called first grade butter. U's a most peculiar position, and one that calls for prompt action on the part of the Government. I would like to emphasise again that the butter that we got into trouble about was separator butter, purchased from two local farmers, arid it was shipped just as purchased. We didn't make the butter oarselves, or mill it. or naeV it. or anything like that.. We purchased it, jgul because the makers had put too much water in it we have to suffer." MESSRS J. B. MacEWAN & CO. Mr. A. MacEwan. acting-manager for Messrs J. B. MacEwan and Co. here, and a man who is daily interested ii» the butter business, ww emph tiie in his views. 'I never heard of anything So ridiculous in my life," he said, in/reply to ;i query as to what he thought of the system adopted of prosecuting the exporter of the butter. If there were to be prosecutions at all, then the company making the butter should be proceeded against. From hi* point of view it was like this: "We buy, say, 100 boxes of butter from a company on grade. We get our copy of the grade note. There is nothing on it to indicate that the moisture is excessive or otherwise. The grade-notes are, and should be, taken as a guaran;ee that the conditions imposed have been complied with. We have no oth.;r means of ascertaining the moisture content. You see, butter can have 20 ver cent, moisture, and still be first gr.ub. But we "can't export it." , Mr. MacEwan expressed the opinion tliat it was ihe business of the Government, when grnlmg butter, to analyse it for moisture, and make the moisture, contents known riffht away to the maker' and the purchaser or agent. Jt would not be practicable for a firm to have the analyses made, for tunny-firms had butter ship-, pdd from several ports, and it would betoo expensive to keep an analyst at each port. At present the buyers, were in *:t unfortunate positron. Having bought the butter subject to its passing the Government grader as first■ quality, i. was found to contain too much wa" f *r and to be unsuitable for export. But thp firm had jio recourse against the seller, ,for the "first grade" condition had been complied with. MacEwan said he had noticed the remark in the "Daily News" the other day to the effect that an agricultural chemist had offered to test for moisture ihe produce from the Taranaki dairy factories, and said that the buyers would be quite prepared to purchase upon bis certificate.

MESSRS. E. GRIFFITHS & CO. Mr. JK. Oriffiths' was next seen on tha subject! He remarked that on the face of .it the firm of Collett and Co. was being punished in respect of an offeice coiunitted by someone else. He went very carefully into'the whole position, and liis remarks ■ are summarised for the benefit of our readers.. Mr. Griffiths pointed out that the maximum , English limit of 'moisture content in ' butter was 10 per cent., and persons .m- ■ porting into the United Kingdom butter 1 containing more moisture than that were liable to prosecution. That wis • how tlie trouble arose in New Zealand, and it would be seen that very serious trouble might easily accrue to the Dominion. If, /upon the arrival of Ne\y 1 Zealand butter at Home the eamp : es ; taken by the Customs officiate at the docks was found to exceed the legal .limit of moisture, prosecution follow*!, ti'.ie importer of the offending produ.e Tieiiift fined and the butter confiscated. Of course, details of the prosecution -would be .published in all the commercial newspaper-, together with tlie name of the country where the butter was manufactured, and the brand of the butter. This would immediately cause buyers of New Zealand butter to be a bit frightened, and it would be a very bad advertisement foT that particular brand, which would be practically branded in . the c.ves of the trade as a brand coiiamirijS excessive moisture. Then in

addition to the sampling of the butter at the docks for analysis, there were inspectors under the Act whose duty it was to go around to the retail shops and get samples of the butter offered for sale. The general thing was for the inspector «o lake a child with him, and sent the latter into the shop to buy a pound of butter. Immediately it was received by the child and paid for, the inspector appeared, and notilied the »3!l----«.r that tile-butter was being obtained for tile .purposes of analysis. The .package would then be divided into three parts, each beinghealed, one being handed to tile seller and the other two taken iby the inspector. If the butter was found to exceed the legal amount of moisture, the shopkeeper was prosecuted aud had to s'uffcr. Of course the brand of butter analysed would be referred to an the court proceedings, and would get the full publicity of the public prints, I thus practically notifying the whole) trade that the "Siich-aml-Siich" bra'i'l 1 of butter contained too much moisture. I It would thus be seen how far-reaching j ■would bo the circcts of any prosecution for the sale of New Zealand butter of this sort, and how' diiricult it would immediately become to sell the butter in respect of,which a prosecution had taken plbcc, particularly to sell .it to a man who had been lined. "•With regard to to-day's proceedings," continued Mr. Griffiths, " 1 think it is unwise for the Department to enforce the Act as it stands, without enforcing also the intentions of the 'Act, which is to prevent both the manufacture and export of butter containing y, excessive moisture. Absolutely 110 good sS&i, ncciuc to the industry or to the Department by prosecuting the exporter.

Those of us' in tlie business know full well that more butter with excessive moisture content was exported last year than was generally known, and we know that firms at Home who received the butter did everything in their power to prevent prosecutions at Home, knowing perfectly well the great harm a prosecution would do to the New. Zealand industry. And now it seems strange tiiat those people who have done so much to establish and maintain the best possible name for New i.ealana nutter, are now being prosecuted merely because they happen to be handlers" of butter containing moisture in excess of a certain limit. As the Act at the present time is so luully drawn as to permit of these prosecutions, it should lie altered; 01', oil tile other hand, if it is not deemed advisable to alter it, file ikpartiuent of Agriculture should on I v enforce it by prosecuting the manufacturing factories when they are the exporters. But to my mind the Act should be amended at once, and made so as to enable the manufacturers of the butter to be held responsible for the moisture content. If the people at Home consider they are being cheated bv being allowed to purchase butter containing over l(i per cent, moisture, we in New Zealand are being imposed 011 jiist as much when we buy similar butter here. If the Government Analyst were to analyse some of the butter sold over the counters in New Zealand lie would be amazed at the quantity of water they contain. The Act ought to be amended so as to penalise any factorv if any of its butter was found outside its doors containing an excess of moisture. 311!. NEWTON KIXCi.

.Mr. Newton Xing promptly expressed the opinion th.it the law as at present enforced was operating unfairly. lie explained tliat the bulk of both factory and private dairy butter was bought by the exporters on a s-ystom by which they never even saw it. It. was bought delivered at the Government cool si (ires, and paid for 011 the grade certificate. | So it was hard to penalis- the exporter for a fault, in the manuf tcture, it fault, in the making of which he could have no participation. It was a great pitv that this moisture content was increasing, or it must have the eli'eet of bringing down the value of our butter. Of course, it must be recognised that a good deal of our butter went into the hands of the blenders, who were prepared to pay well for a butter into which it was possible to force a good deal of water, and if they found the New Zealand butters coming forward with mois- ; ture close up to the limit they would, of course, drop the price. Another aspect of the moisture question was that the reputation of our butter must snlYer if the excessive moisture was persisted in, for its keeping qualities were not a* good as in the case of dry butter. As for the analysis of butter, and the suggestion that it was the business of the exporter to see that the produce conformed to the law, that was one aspect, i of the question. The other was that | for every difficulty put in the way of the exporter in handling the produce'the farmer had ultimately to pay. The exporter would pay the cost of testing or analysis, if such were found necessary, but the farmers could feel very Sure they would have to stand the cost in the end.