JOINT AGRICULTURAL, PASTORAL, AND STOCK COMMITTEE. HON. C. J. JOHNSTON, CHAIRMAN.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1898 Session I, I-08

I.—B

1898. NEW ZEALAND.

JOINT AGRICULTURAL, PASTORAL, AND STOCK COMMITTEE. HON. C. J. JOHNSTON, CHAIRMAN.

SLAUGHTEBING AND INSPECTION BILL. EVIDENCE TAKEN DUEING SECOND SESSION, 1897.

The Mayoe, Invercargill, to the Hon. the Mihistee for Ageicultuee. Honoubed Sic, — Municipal Offices, Invercargill, 27th October, 1897. My object in writing you is to urge some amendment being made as soon as possible in " The Abattoirs and Slaughterhouses Act, 1894," believing as I do that, as the Act stands at present, it is very unsatisfactory, and fails to confer the benefits which many thought it would. The Act gives very little encouragement to a local body to establish a public abattoir, which "- is a consummation devoutly to be wished for "in all towns of any importance. When an abattoir is erected in a town, all butchers selling or delivering meat to order in such should be compelled to have their meat inspected and killed at such an abattoir. The Act should accordingly be amended, otherwise few towns will risk establishing an abattoir under such an unsatisfactory state of things. Let me take our position in Invercargill for example. Last week the ratepayers of this town (Borough of Invercargill) decided by a majority of over four hundred votes to raise a loan of £5,000 to erect a public abattoir. You will remember, through your kindness, Mr. Gilruth, the Chief Veterinary Surgeon, visited Invercargill at my request, inspected and furnished a very able report on the slaughteryards, remarking that " they were the worst he had ever seen; " and, moreover, advised as to the great desirability of erecting an abattoir. The existing slaughteryards are out of the Town of Invercargill, consequently are not under our control. We have no powers of inspection, the yards being under the control and jurisdiction of the Southland County Council, which body has not the same interest in the meat-supply of Invercargill as the Invercargill Borough Council. Now, before we can get any power of inspection whatever, we must erect an abattoir, and even then, it is not made compulsory for all meat to pass through the abattoir. Even if the Abattoir Inspector had authority to visit the slaughteryards the inspection would not be thorough, nor would it pay. The killing must be centralised. Now, the Southland County Council has an Inspector, but he is not a veterinary surgeon; and even if that body had a qualified Inspector he could not have a satisfactory inspection of the meat before and after killing, inasmuch as the slaughteryards are situated some distance apart from one another, and he could not be present on all occasions at each slaughteryard at the time of killing. I may say that the County Council will not appoint a qualified Inspector, as it will not pay them to do so. The position, therefore, is that, so far as the meat-supply of the town and the suburbs is concerned, there is no inspection of meat before and after killing, and consequently there is no proper check against diseased meat being put into consumption. I have no doubt there are other towns in New Zealand in the same unsatisfactory position. The Invercargill Borough Council is consequently forced to erect an abattoir under an unsatisfactory law, leaving it optional for butchers to kill thereat. The Act, it is true, gives power (inter alia) to a local body to make by-laws to prohibit, in effect, meat coming into a town for sale unless such meat has been killed at a licensed slaughteryard, which may be a disgusting one, and the meat has been inspected and passed as sound by the Inspector of a local authority; but, as I have pointed out, the County Council has no qualified Inspector, nor has it any inspection of meat before and after killing, nor have we an Inspector, as we get no revenue at present from the slaughteryards or butchers, having no jurisdiction outside the town. I—l. 8.

I.—B

2

Moreover, even when we erect the abattoir, unless the Act is amended at once, the qualified Inspector will be only at the abattoir, and the butchers who will not kill there will not bring their cattle to him. It is therefore plain, unless the Act is amended, all the butchers not being compelled to kill at the abattoir, the proposed and authorised expenditure will be wasted. Again, we have five suburban boroughs which, of course, are interested in the meat-supply. To sum up my remarks, I think the Act should be amended as follows : (1.) If an abattoir be erected by a city or town (say, Invercargill Borough Council), to enable or permit suburban boroughs (say, North Invercargill Borough Council, &c.) to pass a resolution or make a by-law prohibiting the sale or delivery of meat to order in such suburban borough unless such meat be killed at the abattoir so established by the city or town. (2.) To make it compulsory on all butchers or persons vending, selling, or delivering to order meat in a town or city which has erected an abattoir to kill their meat at such abattoir. I think you will agree that all slaughteryards, and even dairies, should be under the jurisdiction of the Town or City Council, and not the County Council, which has really no interest in the meat- and milk-supply. To give bodies interested jurisdiction, the yards and dairies should be placed under a Board composed of representatives from the Councils of such bodies. It seems to me the Public Health Act, "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1886," and "The Abattoirs and Slaughterhouses Act, 1894," should be amended so far as is necessary and applicable to these suggested improvements. Trusting that the foregoing matters will have your favourable consideration. I am, &c,

J. A. Hanan, Mayor. The Hon. J. McKenzie, House of Representatives, Wellington. The Town Clerk, Onehunga, to Sir George Maurice O'Rorke. Sir, — Onehunga Rorough Council, 22nd November, 1897. I am directed by the Onehunga Borough Council to request that you will use your best endeavours to prevent the passing into law of the Bill now before Parliament, the short title of which is " The Slaughtering and Inspection Act, 1897," for the following reasons: — 1. So far as Onehunga is concerned, the present Acts and amendments now in force have worked and are working satisfactorily. 2. That there already exists in the borough a thoroughly good abattoir, on which some £3,000 have been expended, and the Council have not the funds necessary to acquire these premises; nor do they wish the owner to be put to the very great loss which would fall upon him should his premises be closed by the passing of the Bill. 3. That the revenue obtainable under section 17 of the Bill from any abattoir which might be established as the Bill directs would be insufficient to pay the interest and provide a sinking fund to pay off the loan necessary to provide such an abattoir as required by the provisions of the Bill; hence a very serious monetary liability would be thrown upon the borough without a prospect of an adequate return, which the rating power of the borough would be unable to bear. For these reasons the Borough Council hope the Biil will not become law. I have, &c, R. Richardson, Town Clerk.

Sir G. M. O'Eorke, Speaker, House of Eepresentatives, Wellington. Referred to Mr. Lawry, Chairman of the Committee, with a request that he bring it under the the notice of the Committee. —G. M. OR., 23rd November, 1897. The County Clerk, Selwyn County Council, to the Hon. the Minister for Agriculture. Sir, — Selwyn County Council, Christchurch, 13th November, 1897. I have the honour by direction of the Selwyn County Council to inform you that its attention has been called to the Slaughtering and Inspection Bill now before Parliament, and, having given the matter some consideration, it is of opinion that the licensing and management of slaughterhouses and abattoirs should be left in the hands of local authorities. It also thinks that licenses in respect of meat-export companies should, in cases where public abattoirs are in existence, be limited to slaughtering for export beyond the colony, otherwise these companies would be entering into competition with local bodies who had been compelled to establish and maintain abattoirs, and whose income from them might be seriously affected. I have, &c, The Hon. the Minister for Agriculture. W. Jameson, County Clerk.

The Town Clerk, Newton, to the Hon. the Minister of Justice. Sir, — Newton Borough Council Office, 17th November, 1897. I have the honour by direction of the above Council to inform you that the Hon. J. McKenzie's Slaughtering and Inspection Bill now before the House was discussed at its last meeting, held on the 15th instant, when strong oppositon was expressed to the clause making it compulsory for a borough to establish abattoirs, also to the proposal to centralise the management in Wellington. I have, &c, The Hon. T. Thompson, Minister for Justice. J. Currie, Town Clerk.

3

I.—B

Messrs. E. and W. Hellaby to the Joint Ageicultueal, Pastoeal, and Stock Committee. Me. Chairman and Gentlemen, — Shortland Street, Auckland, 22nd November, 1897. Be Slaughterhouse Act.—At present the cattle are inspected by the Government Inspector at the saleyards; if there is any beast that looks suspicious the Inspector sees it killed, and if unfit for human food it is sent to the boiling-down works at once, and there treated for tallow and manure. The Newton Borough Inspector visits the yards and inspects the meat and cleanliness of the premises. Our works comprise slaughteryards, tallow-works, bone-mills, manure-works, tannery, fellmongery and casing-cleaning department, cattle-sheds, piggeries, &c. In the completion of these works we have spent over £10,000. Our killing amounts to one hundred and fifty bullocks and about one thousand sheep per week, besides pigs and calves. We have at present in course of erection in the city freezing-works, at a cost of £7,000, on completion of which we anticipate doing a large export trade. In the event of our license for slaughtering being refused, it would make the whole of this plant and expenditure practically worthless, and would mean ruin to our firm. We may state that we have no objection whatever to further inspection, providing that your honourable members can make the Bill so that we retain our license, and so continue our industry. Trusting that this will receive your favourable consideration, We remain, &c, E. and W. Hellaby.

E. Salmon and Co. to Mr. Lawey, M.H.E. Dbae Sib,— Queen Street, Auckland, 18th November, 1897. We see that the Slaughtering and Inspection Bill is now before you. We have gone through it very carefully, and have come to the conclusion that it is not required. It looks to us an attempt to monopolise the trade in the big companies' hands. It is certainly very hard on the small tradesmen who have their slaughterhouses, also on the Borough Councils, as it takes a portion of their income away, and gives nothing in place. We trust that you will oppose it. The Act of 1896 meets all requirements. It certainly will give monopoly in our city, and we find it quite hard enough to fight at present. Yours, &c, Mr. Lawry, M.H.E. E. Salmon and Co.

Mr. O. W. Oldham to Mr. P. Haetmann. Sic,— Western Packing Company, Patea, 23rd November, 1897. I have your wire re Slaughtering Bill, for which I thank you. I would ask, Why am I not included in the Second Schedule with other companies ? I have been slaughtering for export of both canned and frozen meat for ten years, and am at present the only canner of meat in colony that is on the Admiralty list. The omission of my works from Second Schedule might do me an injury, as the British and foreign Governments are most particular as regards quality and mode of slaughtering, and my trade is chiefly supplying contracts. I would thank you to bring this matter under the Committee's notice. Yours, &c, P. Hartmann, Esq., Wellington, 0. W. Oldham.

Messrs. Samson and Sons to P. Lawey, Esq., M.H.E. Sic, — Burnside, 22nd November, 1897. We are of opinion that the Bill at present before the House will, if carried in its entirety, ultimately extinguish private slaughterhouses altogether, which we object to. If your Committee think that more strict inspection is required than that provided by the Act of 1894, we are quite prepared to come under it; but we must object to being wiped out altogether—at any rate, unless we are fairly compensated. We will give you a brief outline of our position. We have been carrying on business as slaughterers here for nearly twenty years, and we have spent about £4,000 in buildings for the proper carrying on of the trade; and, since the passing of the Act of 1894, we have spent a considerable amount of money to enable us to come under that Act. About twelve months ago the Taieri County Council nominated an Inspector, whom the Governor duly appointed, and ever since every load of meat that leaves our yards carries a certificate of inspection, a copy of which I herewith enclose. We have thirteen years of our lease still to run, and would certainly be very heavy losers if our business was interfered with, if this Bill is passed as printed. Moreover, there are twenty-four of us, all told, drawing a living out of our business, so we think that your Committee will agree with us that ours would be a hard case. Trusting that your Committee in their wisdom will duly consider this my true statement, and recommend what they consider fit for the benefit of the people, as also for us who have invested our capital to benefit the public. We have, &c., P. Lawry, Esq., M.H.E. Samson and Sons.

Messrs. Nelson Beothbks, to Mr. P. Habtmann. Sib,— Tomoana, Hawke's Bay, 20th November, 1897. I have to thank you for wire received this morning re Slaughterhouse Act. I beg to enclose copy of objections to the Act, which I had already written and forwarded to some of my friends, and which, I think, expresses " shortly " most of the objections to the Act. I would call particular attention to the paragraph scored in blue, which embraces the whole of my belief: "All meat for export should be struck out of the Bill, except so far as inspection for disease only." I am, &c, P. Hartmann, Esq., Wellington. W. Nelson,

1.-8

Tomoana, Hawke's Bay, 10th November, 1897. W. Nelson's objections to Slaughtering and Inspection Act, put shortly : — Clause 2, Lines 20 to 24, Disease, &c. —This will burst the preserving trade. Advanced Pregnancy. —We get hundreds of so-called dry ewes, in which a stray ram has been running without the knowledge of the owner; are these to be condemned, when for preserving purposes they are perfectly good ? Of course, we should not freeze animals in this condition. Condition of Stock in the Opinion of Inspector, &c. —We kill fifty thousand sheep a year (" crocks ") for preserving purposes, which probably, in the " opinion of an Inspector," would " not be fit for human food," neither would they look very inviting hanging up in a shop ; still they are perfectly good for a variety of preserving work. Besides the above, there are parts of many animals which have various complaints, which would come under the head of "Disease," which are perfectly good for preserving purposes and manufacture of extract, where the whole of the meat is subjected to a heat far above boiling-point, which is a very different thing to eating the same thing in a half-raw condition. Clause 17, Line 15. —1 should not care to spend money for abattoir purposes on an agreement of only three years; this should be at least six. Clause 27, Line 7. —"Inspectors " are all right, but we do not want " Graders." It has taken us fifteen years to learn our business as graders, and it would be very unfair to us and most disastrous to the trade for the freezing companies to be liable to the freaks of a " Grader." Clause 30, Subsection (2). —This is all right for abattoirs, but would be practically impossible in freezing works. Clause 32, Subsections (3) and (4). —This might create endless confusion in the shipping trade. Clause 34. —This is a matter concerning only the meat companies; but should the fad of "Indelibly marking" the carcase (which many people think so much of) ever be enforced, the frozen-meat trade will, in our opinion, be destroyed, as no butcher could sell disfigured joints. Clause 33. —1f there is no grader he cannot give a certificate. Clause 37. —Is a big order. So far as the meat is concerned, inspection for disease is all that is wise to introduce; and, so far as the ship is concerned, it becomes a matter for the insurance companies. Clause 58, Subsection (8). —The " Governor " should not have power to regulate the "branding, marking, and grading " of the meat. Clause 39. —Contemplates the " suspension of all provisions in this Act on meat for export." It would be far preferable never to put them in, but simply provide that all meat for export or otherwise shall be inspected for disease. This would meet every requirement both for Home and foreign markets. Thus, if the Government is in a position to advertise that not a pound of meat leaves New Zealand without Government " inspection," there can be nothing further desired. Certificates are no good —the general knowledge of the fact is the important point. It may be and has been said that many of the clauses are only intended for " evil-doers " ; but if it becomes law there is no telling how or to whom it may be applied. I have, &c, W. Nelson.

Mr. W. H. Millwabd to Mr. J. D. Eitchie. The Gear Meat Preserving and Freezing Company of New Zealand (Limited), Deab Sib,— Wellington, 20th November, 1897. As you have been good enough to have one or two conversations with me over the Slaughtering and Inspection Bill, I think it only right to let you know that I take exception to it in the following particulars : — Grading. —lt is absolutely impracticable to accomplish this satisfactorily, as the question of crosses and breeds will necessarily be introduced. If these clauses pass, the buyers will be unable to pay the farmers for their sheep until they have passed through the hands of the Government grader, in order that the number which will be permitted to rank as first-class may be ascertained. This, you will admit, will be a serious inconvenience to many sheepowners. It has taken the freezing companies a mimber of years to arrive at the requirements of the English people, and even now their fancies change with astonishing rapidity, according to seasons and supplies from other parts. Indelible Brands. —No satisfactory method has yet been introduced, and I am quite confident that any tampering with the carcases will result in serious injury to the trade. Fees. —The maximum fees should be stated in the Bill, as it is not right to leave such an important matter to be fixed by regulation. The freezing companies, as far as I can gather, are anxious that all stock should be inspected for disease. If this be done, will not an announcement in the English papers by the Agent-General to that effect be a useful advertisement, and at the same time do away with the necessity for spoiling the carcases by marks of any description ? Such an inspection would also meet the wishes of colonial consumers, and those interested in the tinned-meat trade. I am, &c, W. H. Millwaed. J. D. Eitchie, Esq., Government Stock Department, Wellington.

4

5

1.-8

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Feiday, 26th November, 1897. Mr. F. Waymouth, Secretary Canterbury Frozen Meat Company, Limited, examined. Hon. the Chairman : You have read this Bill, Mr. Waymouth ? We should like to hear what you have to say to supplement your written statement. Probably the best way will be for you to go through the Bill and take the clauses upon which you wish to comment ? Mr. Waypiouth : I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have been requested by the Gear Meat Company, and by the Wellington Meat Export Company, to say that I voice their views as well as those of my own company ; and I also understand from Mr. Anderson, of Christchurch, that I hold the same position for the company that he represents. I therefore speak for the whole four companies. The first item that we take exception to is on page 2, section 2, the definition of " Disease." We all think that the words " advanced pregnancy, recent parturition, and any other defect or inferiority " should be better defined. In regard to pigs, for instance, you are aware that it is found almost necessary to get the females in young before it is safe to make bacon of them. Also, that animals fatten much more rapidly in a state of pregnancy than if they are worrying and nervous owing to want of that condition. 1. Hon.. the Chairman.] Are there any two or three words of alteration in the clause that you can suggest to give effect to your ideas ? —No. We only wish to call attention to what we think "inferiority " should consist in. Take, for instance, canned meats, which are canned all over the world ; they consist practically of inferior meat. It is sound, healthy meat, but at the same time it is only old stores that it is impossible to fatten. 2. The words you complain of are, of course, subject to the last two lines: " which, in the opinion of the Inspector, renders it unfit for human consumption " ?—lf that is meant to cover it, it meets the objection, but there was a doubt in our minds as to whether it did, and I merely wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the matter. The next item is on page 3, section 3, subsection (2). This gives farmers a right to slaughter swine without inspection. This question affects the two Canterbury meat companies probably more than the others. While we have no wish to restrict the farmer in carrying on his business, I think it is unfair that he should be placed on a different footing from the companies, and hold that all pigs should be liable to inspection. The farmer, if he had any doubtful pigs, could sell the sound ones to an establishment where they would have to be inspected, and the doubtful ones he could carefully slaughter himself. The chances are that he would do so. I would also like to point out that, if exempted from inspection, farmers could not comply with clauses 35 to 37, which provide that no meat, whether frozen, chilled, or salted, may be-exported without a certificate. 3. Mr. Wason.] I should be glad if Mr. Waymouth would give us some indication as to how he would alter the clause ?—I think an inspection of farmers' swine to be equally necessary with those of the factories. Hon. L. Walker. Under sub-clause (2) of clause 3 farmers are not allowed to slaughter more than one head of cattle and five head of any other description in any one week. I think that is very absurd. Mr. Waymouth : I would like to point out with regard to the matter mentioned by Mr. Walker, that it should receive some consideration from the committee. Take for instance when shearing or harvesting is going on —the meat is practically sold to the men, as they work by contract and pay for their rations. This meat could not be supplied by runholders and large farmers, with the limitation in this clause of the Act. The next point is on page 6 section 19. It appears to us that that clause might preclude the erection of new freezing works, should it be deemed necessary, in any district in which a public abattoir is already in existence. It reads "no license shall be granted in respect of a slaughterhouse in any district in which there is established a registered abattoir for slaughtering stock." Mr. Ritchie.] Meat export slaughterhouses are made an exception under the clause. Mr. Waymouth : There was a doubt in our minds as to whether a serious difficulty might not arise unless the matter were made clear. Page 8, section 27 : " Appointment of inspectors and officers :" In this section the word " graders " appears for the first time without any definition whatever, it is not mentioned in the interpretation clause what they are or what they are to do. We are quite agreed as to the necessity for inspection, and would be very pleased to see inspection, so far as health is concerned, carried out; but we all maintain that it is impossible under any Government system to grade, as the freezing companies themselves, who might be presumed to know most about their business, are practically groping in the dark at present as to grading, and we have almost every six months to change our system to suit the requirements of the London market. How could any system of grading for the market by the Government be of advantage to the trade ? i. Hon. the Chairman.] I suppose the principal grading would be the rejection of inferior sheep ?—Yes, and this Bill does not provide for rejection of inferior meat for export; it only says that it shall not be graded. Meat of an inferior grade might be more suitable for the purposes of the market than the very best meat produced. In connection with grading, I should like to point out that, if it is to be done by Government regulation, it would mean either that Canterbury meat

I.—B.

6

would have to be graded down to that of the rest of New Zealand, or else that meat from other parts of New Zealand would have to be graded as second-class. It would seriously affect our Canterbury product if the grade had to be thrown back, and, as Canterbury exports one-half of the meat sent from the colony, we naturally think it should receive some consideration. The next is page 9, section 30; " Eecord of stock slaughtered to be kept in slaughter-book ": In connection with this clause, I should like to say that, in the case of the freezing companies, it would be absolutely impossible to comply with such a clause. At the Belfast works alone we slaughter at the rate of five hundred an hour. How would it be possible, when we receive sheep accumulated by different stockowners, to take down the ear-mark, brand, and sex of every sheep; especially when, at certain seasons of the year, the sheep come in damp and travel-stained, and it is impossible to see any brand upon them ? 5. Mr. Bitchie.] You do not, then, comply with the present Act ?—No, and that is just why we bring the matter up; it is known that the present Act is a dead-letter. Why put it in the new Act, when it is impossible to carry it out? Section 31 : " The slaughter-book shall at all times be open to inspection by any Inspector or Justice of the Peace without fee, and by any other person on payment of a fee of one shilling for each inspection:" We do not know for what reason a Justice of the Peace should have the right of inspection, or what would make a Justice of the Peace any better judge of stock than other persons. Mr. Bitchie : It is to provide for cases of sheep-stealing, when a Justice of the Peace might be acting in his official capacity. Mr. Waymouth : The words seem to want qualifying. Then, with regard to " any other person " inspecting the slaughter-book on payment of Is. ; this would be a very serious matter to the freezing companies. Say, where there are two companies in the same district, and where there is possibly a keen competition between them. There are at present two in Hawke's Bay, two in Wellington, two in Canterbury, and two in Southland. Now, the source whence their stock for freezing is derived is the whole crux of the business of these companies; and if the books were open to inspection as proposed, there would be no keeping your business to yourself at all. It would be a constant source of trouble between the companies. Section 32, subsection (2) :" It shall not be lawful for any person to bring or allow to be brought into any slaughtering-place any stock, or to remove or allow to be removed therefrom for human consumption, or for export, any meat if he knows such stock or meat to be diseased." We do not know how it would be possible, when you have stock in the paddocks which are found to be diseased, to get rid of them without taking them into the slaughterhouse, unless you shoot them in the paddocks. Mr. Bitchie : The clause states " for human consumption or export." Mr. Waymouth : Our opinion on this matter is strongly that stock should be inspected for health as it is killed ; once it is condemned, it is sent to the vats without any question at all about its being allowed to be brought into the slaughter-house. Hon. the Chairman : This is a matter which can easily be remedied. Mr. Waymouth : Sub-section (3) of Clause 32 : "It shall not be lawful for any person to slaughter any stock in an abattoir or meat-export slaughter-house without the written permit of an Inspector." We think that the position should be reversed—that we should be allowed to proceed with our business ; and if the Inspector has anything to object to, he should have the power by writing or otherwise to discontinue the slaughtering. 6. Hon. the Chairman.] You object to the permit in advance ?—Yes ; we might want to go on with our business some morning before the Inspector comes. We should have to wait for his arrival, and also for him to inspect the stock. Section 34 : " Indelible Branding " : The freezing companies feel very strongly that it is impossible to get any system of indelibly branding carcases that would not be an injury to the meat. There is no system of indelible branding yet devised that is not injurious. I mentioned in the letter I wrote to Mr. Bitchie in this connection that while I was in London I saw some carcases that had been considered to be indelibly branded— they were neither more nor less than spoiled. Directly they began to thaw, they commenced to " weep," and lost juioe badly. In our trade we think that if the Government inspection were made as to health, and that it is distinctly understood and advertised that all meat killed for export in any shape or form, is killed subject to Government inspection, it would be far better than any attempt to indelibly brand the carcases. Clauses 35 to 39 : With regard to the whole of these clauses, we think they should be withdrawn from the Bill. In the first place it is provided that an export-certificate has to be obtained before any meat can be placed on board ship for export. The effect of this is that swine slaughtered by farmers and made into bacon and ham could not be exported from New Zealand. Now there is a large trade in Christchurch in that way—farmers slaughter the swine and sell the carcases to a large number of curing firms in the town who have no slaughter-houses —Wardell -Brothers, the Farmers' Co-operative Association, Gilmour Brothers, and others. These curers export a large quantity of bacon and ham, especially to New South Wales, and they could not do this and comply with clause 35. Then, with regard to our frozen meat, we think that the mere fact of our having to produce a certificate will be taken by our competitors as evidence that disease exists in New Zealand, and that the Legislature has had to legislate to prohibit the export of diseased meat. As the Committee must be aware, in the case of sheep at any rate, there is no such thing as disease in our flocks, and the mere fact of our having to produce an exportcertificate that the meat shipped was free from disease, would certainly be taken as evidence that there was disease, and would act to our detriment outside the colony. We have killed, during the twelve months ending the 31st October last, 591,685 head of sheep, and we had all the inspecting that the Government proposes to do under this Bill. Of course, we condemned what we did not think fit for export. There were 153 sheep calloused, forty bruised, ten yellow, and two thin : total, 211, out of nearly six hundred thousand; that was the result of our year's work. I give these figures, not only as information as to how the freezing companies do their work, but as to the freedom from disease in the colony.

7

I.—B

7. Hon. the Chairman.] You hold that meat-export certificates would be injurious ?—Yes, decidedly; and, in addition, would point out the difficulty of getting an Inspector who would be able to judge the condition of the ship for carrying meat. It would be also a vexatious regulation —we could not send a case of tongues or a case of bacon or hams to Victoria without getting the ship inspected. With regard to frozen meat there might probably be some excuse for it, but how should any Government Inspector be able to know whether the ship is fit to perform the voyage or not ? We have made strenuous efforts to get the ships inspected by the very best surveyors to be had in the colony to see if they are fit to carry the meat. When in England I approached Lloyds' on the subject, and they are favourably considering whether they will formulate rules for such inspection, and in the meantime Lloyds' surveyors are used by us as our surveyors. Section 38 : " The indelible branding of each tin " : The injurious effect of that on the trade would be almost worse than of branding the frozen meat, for this reason: we think that the fact of inspection being made is amply sufficient without having a brand put on each case and each tin. The whole of the dies at present in use in New Zealand would have to be altered, at a cost of £2,000 or £3,000 for new dies. If we indelibly brand our tinned meat we could not sell it in England. 8. Do you mean that our preserved meat is sold as New Zealand meat ?—Yes, in many cases, and if we indelibly mark our tins, our trade is gone. Sections 43 and 45 : the same objection as previously mentioned arises as to the word " Justice" in these sections. Should it not be defined that it is to be a Justice of the Peace on judicial duty who is to exercise the right? Otherwise our business might be considerably interfered with by some meddling Justice who wanted to see what we were doing. Section 49 : with regard to pig-pens, I may say that we freezing companies do not keep pigs, we only receive them for slaughter, and consequently our pig-pens are as contiguous to the slaughter-house as possible—in fact they are right alongside where they get some shelter in bad weather. The Bill would prevent them from being " brought within fifty yards of any slaughter-place, save for the purpose of immediate slaughter therein." Supposing we receive pigs on Saturday and they have to be put in the pens until Monday morning, I should think that would not be immediate slaughtering. We should like the matter more clearly defined, or an inspector who has a strict idea of his duty may cause serious trouble to the freezing companies. Section 56 :" No person shall be entitled to any compensation for any stock or meat which under the provisions of this Act is destroyed or otherwise so disposed of as to be rendered unfit for human consumption." I think it would decidedly be to the advantage of all concerned if the producer were to bear the loss for condemned a.nimals —he is the man who breeds the condemned animal, and in many cases he sells it knowing that it would be condemned on slaughtering. The clause does not affect my company, because the stock we freeze all belongs to the producer, and any loss necessarily falls on his shoulders. Mr. Bitchie explained that the clause merely provided that the Government should not be liable for compensation. The question of who should bear the loss was not affected by the Bill. 9. Mr. Buchanan.] With reference to the question of grading, am I right in taking your opinion to be that the Government should not at present interfere, and that the Bill should be confined to inspection for disease ?—Yes. 10. With reference to compensation, supposing stock has passed through several hands before it reaches the freezing company, on whom do you say that the loss should fall in case of any of the animals being condemned on account of disease ? —On the producer. 11. Is the producer to be unrepresented in the matter —that is, in a position to protect himself in any way, although months may have elapsed between his selling the stock and their final arrival at the freezing works ?—lt is not likely that months would elapse between the producer selling the stock and the time of slaughter ; but I may say, that even in that casethe freezing company would not be represented either, as there is no right of appeal against the decision of the Inspector under the Act. 12. Let us take a case. A farmer on the Peninsula sells some stock, and it is brought down to Addington yards, and, after passing through several hands, it finally gets to the Belfast Freezing Company. Who is the producer in that case ?—I take it that if it is diseased it probably was so before it left the hands of the producer. 13. Can you mention any other line of business in which the purchaser has not to take a reasonable risk as to the quality of what he purchases ? —Oh, yes; in most businesses there is a warranty as to what you are purchasing, and you have recourse against the man you purchase, from. 14. I know of a case in the Wellington district. A farmer sold a lot of fat cattle, and some of the cattle were not killed until a month after they were sold, when the purchaser returned one of them badly diseased. The cattle were all, admittedly, very prime as far as appearance could indicate. The purchaser then claimed something over one half of what he paid for the diseased animal. Do you think, in such a case, the farmer was entitled to pay?—l should say he would be, if it was a disease that the animal could not have contracted within the month. 15. You would then make the farmer answerable for the development that took place within the month ? —There is no disease that we have got in New Zealand that would develop to the detriment of stock within a month. 16. Take another case. If I buy a number of store cattle, and take delivery, and pay for them, and find in a fortnight or more that one or more of thftm are troubled with actinomycosis or other disease ; you would make the seller liable in such a case ?—Undoubtedly. 17. Suppose I buy a lot of stock in the Manawatu District and take them over to the Wairarapa, and suddenly make a claim upon the seller. He would have to travel to my place to see if my representations were correct, or by what process could the matter be adjusted?—l do not think that I am here to define the process, and was merely stating my opinion on the matter. 18. When I visited London a Committee of the House of Commons had been set up to consider

I.—B.

8

this question. Are you aware whether they discovered any practical means of dealing with the matter?— When I left London, the Committee had adjourned without having come to any practical conclusion. 19. I have a letter in my possession in which the writer stated that it would be necessary to carry a pocket Inspector under this Bill. Is that your opinion ?—My opinion is that the Inspectors are not in New Zealand who could carry out this Act. 20. In the matter of grading, do you think it possible that the varying demands of purchasers in England who cater for the English market could be practically followed by a Government grading department?—l am sure that it could not. It will serve as an instance as to how the circumstances of the trade vary when I mention that Messrs. Nelson Brothers, who are at great expense in the matter of grading here, have to get nearly the whole of their sheep regraded in London before being sent to the consumer, in order to meet the requirements of their London trade. With all Nelson Brothers' experience, that is what they do, and their manager in London told me that it was absolutely necessary. 21. Does your long experience in connection with this trade teach you, that, suppose you were to lose your present staff of graders, you could not easily replace them ?—They could not easily be replaced. I should probably have to stop grading altogether, until I found a suitable class of men to go on with the work, or to educate men to do the work. 22. In other words you are strongly of opinion that Government grading would mean serious consequences in the way of interference with the present trade of the freezing companies ?— Undoubtedly it would. 23. Hon. the Chairman.'] The Department wishes to ask you, Mr. Waymouth, whether the companies would have any objection to grading provided that it was limited to discerning between first and second quality, and did not go into the question as to breed, or whether Southdown, Lincolns and so on ? —I think we would object to any grading as to the quality of the meat, except so far as to say what meat we should not export. 24. Mr. Btichanan.] As to clause 42, I should like to ask Mr. Waymouth whether he thinks the clause as worded is workable?—To tell the truth, I did not think that the Government could be in earnest in drawing the Bill as it is, because we cannot take the skin off in the way it requires us. The Bill contains a certain number of impossibilities. J. A. Gileuth, Government Veterinarian, examined. 25. Hon. the Chairman.'] Mr. Gilruth, we shall be glad to have your opinion as to the interpretation of "disease" in the Bill as regards "advanced pregnancy"?—l should define "advanced pregnancy " to mean the last week or two of carrying the foetus; and even in that case it is not absolutely disease—it is a question for the Inspector to judge. You must allow the Inspector to decide what he considers is meat fit for human consumption. Hon. the Chairman : It seems rather a ridiculous place for it under the heading " Disease." 26. Mr. Bitchie.] Then, as regards branding ?—I have got actual stamps of brands used in Hamburg (produced). I cannot say exactly how they would affect frozen meat. These brands would not injure the skin at all; they are simply stamps. 27. They also tell us that any branding that does not injure the skin would "run"?—ln Hamburg and most places on the Continent they put their meat in a cold store. There is no question of the brand " running " there. Mr. Waymouth explained that it was on being thawed that the brand "ran"; that he had, while in London, seen some carcases from Belfast with these stamp brands; and that, owing to moisture beftig condensed on the carcases, when the meat was thawed the brand " ran," and it was claimed that the legs were poisoned. Mr. Gilruth : Then you have to get a dye that will not " run," even if washed. My opinion is that you can have an indelible brand, and that the " blue " brand there (shown) would not injure the meat. On the other hand, there is the label that the Americans use for their meat. The wire is put through the meat and it is stamped by the Inspector, so that it cannot be removed. 28. Mr. Buchanan.] What about the "weeping" where the meat is punctured?— There is a slight amount. Of course the labels were used there for chilled beef. Frozen beef " weeps " more than frozen mutton, and mutton more than lamb. As regards inspection, most people in New Zealand seem to favour the idea of inspection of the meat. Not that I think there is disease among the sheep. I know there is not; but the people at Home do not know it, and you find people like Mr. Digby standing up in the House of Commons and saying that the spread of cancer in Great Britain is due to the consumption of frozen meat from the colonies. I wish to point out to the committee that there is far too much made of this term " cancer." We have had hereto-day an example, in the statement that some animals were condemned at Addington for cancer. I would undertake to say that the gentleman would not know cancer if he saw it. 29. Hon. the Chairman.] But it was the Inspector who condemned the animals because they had cancer? —I know the Inspector in question, and am perfectly certain he never said anything of the sort. We hear a great deal about cancer in the colonies. Now, there is no such thing as the term in any Act in Great Britain regarding stock; therefore, should a member of the House of Commons want to find out whether there is any such thing in the colony, he would consult the Acts bearing on the subject, and, finding the term, he might immediately characterize the meat as possibly dangerous. It is the people who do not know anything about cancer who most frequently use the term. I do not wish the Committee to understand that there is absolutely no cancer among stock in the colony —it depends upon the definition of cancer. Any malignant tumour may be called "cancer." Again, what would have been called "cancer" fifteen years ago would not be so called to-day. All malignant tumours were then termed " cancer," and there are perhaps a dozen different kinds of malignant tumours. I have never yet seen a

9

I.—B,

case of true malignant cancer in any animal in the.colony. With regard to inspection, people generally seem to view it with favour, and I maintain that inspection is not worth anything so long as you do not have a stamp of some sort; because if you have simply a label or a tag what is to hinder anybody from removing the label or tag and putting them on to something else, such as Eiver Plate mutton ; and then, if even one carcase had something wrong with it, that drew the attention of people to it, we should never be able to prove the fact that it was not New Zealand meat but Eiver Plate. You must therefore have an indelible mark of some kind. When in Hamburg, as I mentioned in my report, I witnessed the slaughter of some horses brought across from England which were intended for human consumption in preference to our frozen meat, and they were also paying more for it per pound. I was told that they had two shipments of frozen meat there—l found out afterwards that they, in all probability, came from Queeensland —it was a ship with a New Zealand name —the "Eangatira," I think. The first shipment, I was informed, sold at a better price than even their own local product. Of the next shipment, a careful examination was made, and some three per thousand (0-3 per cent.) were found to be affected with tuberculosis, and that fact damned the whole trade. Now you cannot get any frozen meat into Germany on any account. I found at Home that everybody knew that New Zealand exported meat of the best quality. There is no doubt that ours is the best, and I think we should protect our good name, and have the name " New Zealand "put on everything leaving the colony. The Argentine agent admitted to me that Argentine mutton is not so good as prime Canterbury New Zealand. He said that it was as good as second-class New Zealand, and that the dealer can buy it cheaper, and sell it for the same price as New Zealand. With regard to compensation, I should like to point out what is the practice on the Continent. There are two ways of dealing with the matter. One, that is adopted in Berlin and Paris : they have a sort of insurance fund among the butchers, and for each animal, as he is bought and put into the slaughteryard proper (the sale-yard and slaughter-yard are together), a premium is paid, provided the Insurance Fund Inspector admits it. If the animal is condemned, or any portion of it, the butcher gets compensation out of the fund. The butchers find the premium. 30. There the producer goes free?— Yes ; but no doubt the producer really pays by getting a reduced price. In Hamburg and Copenhagen there is a better system. As the animal goes into the abattoir there is an insurance fee put on, and if the animal is found to be diseased the butcher walks to the office with his sale-ticket and gets the money for it. The town authorities at the abattoir strike a rate which is compulsory—it is practically increasing the yard-fee. 31. Mr. Buchanan.'] In other words the grower or seller has to pay a premium in the shape of an entrance-fee ?—Quite so; it comes out of the producer after all. 32. How would you apply this when the individuality of the animal is lost amongst such large crowds ?—-That would not matter ; it would come to the same thing. 33. I understand you to say that when the meat is condemned the butcher gets full value. What becomes of the skin and bones?— The abattoir takes possession. 34. Mr. Anderson.} I should like to ask if Mr. Gilruth has any idea whether labels can be made fast. We have all been trying to find some method by which labels could not be detached. We had the " fishhook " system until the butchers brought it into bad repute. If a system can be devised that would not be costly it might get over the difficulty to some extent ?—I can only say that they cut this label out for me in Smithfield Market, and the same might be done with ours. (Mr. Gilruth produced the label used by American shippers.) 35. Mr. Laiury.] Would the abattoir authorities be able to do what they liked with the condemned carcases ?—Where I speak of, they boiled them down and turned them into manure. 36. Because we have heard of cases of cattle getting disease from imported bone-dust?— Yes, that has occurred with raw bones only. 37. Mr. Buchanan.] You would have the word " cancer " eliminated from the Bill. Your experience of this colony is that for all practical purposes we have no cancer?— Yes, for all practical purposes. Of course we have tumours —epitheliomata, for instance, which may be called cancer in the old use of the term. 38. Mr. Massey.] Do you consider that cancer is infectious?—l do not know, nor does anyone else. 39. You say that we have no true cancer. Are malignant tumours infectious ?—Not so far as I know. 40. Mr. Buchanan.} Professor McFadyean, a well-known authority at Home, Chief Veterinary Surgeon to the Eoyal Agricultural Society, specifically states, with reference to the infection of milk, that unless the udder is affected there is no danger whatever in consuming milk from a diseased animal; and similarly, as to the consumption of meat, that in the case of infection being confined to the lungs, which could be eliminated in dressing the carcases, he says there is no danger of infection? Do you agree with this opinion? —Yes, lam of the same opinion; and at Home, in all parts of Europe, when tumours are confined to one organ, the carcase is allowed to be used for human consumption. But here the case is slightly different —people are more frightened, and meat is not so dear; moreover, we know to-day that it is really not the microbes that do so much harm as the poisons that they excrete. In the case of consumptives, the poison of the tuberculous germ (tuberculin) causes high rises of temperature, and this poison we know cannot be killed at boiling point. To get tuberculin from a culture it is always treated at a temperature far above boiling point without killing the chemical composition known as tuberculin. So that if we have a diseased animal, we may as well be on the right side, and not give even any of the poisonous products to healthy persons. 41. Has it been ascertained to what temperature you must bring the tubercle bacillus in order to render it innocuous? —Yes, a temperature of 75° centigrade or about 165° Fahr., continued for about fifteen minutes is sufficient. 42. What do you say, then, as to preserving meat when the lungs are touched with tuberculosis ? —Of course, I could not say that it is wrong; at the same time, before saying that it was 2—l. 8.

I.—B

10

right, I should like to see that the meat was right, because I have myself seen a tuberculous tumour on the dinner-table. In case of a tuberculous tumour being deeply seated among the muscles or glands, unless the Inspector knows his work it may easily be overlooked. 43. How do you propose to get a qualified staff of Inspectors?—l do not know, lam sure. 44. The Government would of course look to its expert to guide it in this matter, and the committee wants to know?—We should have to import those for the chief centres—qualified veterinary surgeons, and gradually make use of assistant Inspectors for the smaller towns. 45. That would seem to indicate that this Act could not come into force for some time if it were passed this session ?—Yes ; and that is another point that I think this colony might be doing something towards. It might institute a college for teaching some of the young men of the colony some of the elements of veterinary science. Here is a colony that I. have travelled over from one end to another, and find that a man cannot even draw your tooth without having a certificate; but any man can doctor your horse or cut it up without any qualification whatever. There might be a two years' course instituted in which young men in the colony might get the requisite tuition. There are many towns in the colony in which a young man with the requisite qualification could do very well; and they could also be employed as Inspectors of slaughterhouses. 46. In speaking of the substance to be used for stamping you made use of the expression "aniline dye," but it is the aniline dyes that do run? —Oh, no; I have too much to do with staining microscope sections not to know that they will not run; they would not be of any use if they did. Nothing will take them out in certain cases—not even acids or alcohol. I admit that these aniline dyes are not to be had in the colony. Mr. Buchanan : I should like to ask Mr. Bitchie in what form the Inspectors send in reports in eases where they order the killing of stock which are subsequently found to be healthy ? Mr. Bitchie : They report that they were mistaken in their diagnosis, and on their recommendation we pay for the stock. 47. Mr. Wason (to witness)] Do you consider that there are not sufficient qualified men in New Zealand to be Inspectors under this Act ? —I do not know of any. There are one or two men who would make Inspectors along with their private practice. 48. What amount of salary do you think we should have to pay to Inspectors under the Act ? —It depends upon the duties. You might get men of a class from £250 upwards. If you do not give men a sufficient salary, you simply lay them open to temptation. At present the number of veterinary surgeons in the colony is four in the North Island and six in the South Island. 49. Do you think it would be necessary to have qualified veterinary surgeons ?—Yes; nobody will believe the statements of men who are not properly qualified. England is the only country that permits itself to carry on such inspection without qualified men. There is no inspection there worthy of the name. 50. How would you do as to the case mentioned by Mr. Anderson—of stock slaughtered by the growers and sent in to be dealt with by the freezing companies ?—You would just have to make as careful an examination as possible of the carcases; the lungs might be left in for inspection. 51. Do you mean by "qualified men" members of the Eoyal College of Veterinary Surgeons? —Yes ; they are the only people that are qualified. There are only about a dozen in the colony. Probably the large towns would first have abattoirs, and there would probably have to be assistant Inspectors to help the Chief Inspectors in these towns. These assistants could be relegated in course of time to smaller places and be fairly useful, but there would have to be some control over them by the Chief Inspector, so that butchers and others would have confidence in the administration of the Act. Mr. Gilbeet Andeeson, Secretary Christchurch Meat Company (Limited) examined. 62. Hon. the Chairman.] I believe you generally endorse what Mr. Waymouth has said. Would you like to supplement it in any way ; or to deal with any other clause of the Bill ?—No, I agree with the whole of what Mr. Waymouth has stated. Of course, our business differs from that of his company in this way—that we are local butchers as well as export butchers ; and I may say that so far as our local trade is concerned, we are very much in favour of the Bill. I will confess to even having asked the Stock Department to appoint an Inspector for the killing of meat locally. We have a very great suspicion that quite a large number of cattle are killed for local consumption that are really unfit for human food. As far as the local trade is concerned, we are very much in favour of the clauses in the Bill regarding inspection. 63. Do you pin that down to any particular clause?—No; the whole Bill as far as local consumption is concerned. I may state that our company is run on somewhat similar lines to the Gear Company. As far as the inspection of mutton is concerned, no doubt the Inspector's duties would be very simple. As Mr. Waymouth has said, there is virtually no disease among sheep in Canterbury. I do not think that inspection would do any harm if the Government were to go a step further and assure the public at Home that all our meat is absolutely wholesome. I cannot speak with authority in regard to the last few years as to whether there is the same prejudice against frozen meat that existed when I was at Home ; but there was great prejudice then, because it was thought to be unhealthy. If the Government will go a step further than the Bill provides, and will advertise at Home that all the meat that is examined by the Government Inspectors is of the best quality, and only of the best quality, it might do a great deal of good. As to grading : there is no company that grades more than the Christchurch Meat Company. We have to grade for the requirements of our customers. They take lean sheep in one district and fat sheep in another, and certain weights in different districts, and we have to carry our grading to a very high standard. We have a very large number of grades, and really think that it would be impossible to find graders in New Zealand outside of our own staff that could carry on the work. When a grader has left I have had months of trial to get a man to take up the position.

11

I.—B

I certainly think the Government would be doing well by leaving grading alone. If, however, meat has been exported that should never have been frozen, I would, perhaps, agree to a clause providing that no meat that was of markedly inferior quality should be passed for freezing. I think the whole question of grading should be left to the freezing companies, especially if it is known that they are carrying out their business properly in this respect. Clause 37. Inspection of ships: I really do not see how the Government are going to take up this work unless they intend to go very much further, and see that the meat is carried properly on the voyage to London, and is dealt with properly in London. At present the Belfast Company and ourselves work closely together in this matter. In our freight contract we have some very strict clauses. For instance, it is provided as follows:— Clause 17: Bach vessel provided by the Shipping Company shall be surveyed at least once a year by the said surveyor, but shall also be surveyed by the said Surveyor after every voyage, unless the Meat Company is satisfied by statutory declaration from the captain or other officer of such vessel that there has not been any damage to meat in such vessel during the said voyage, and unless and until the said Surveyor certifies that the said vessel and chambers are in all respects fit to carry meat, the Meat Company may decline to ship meat in her. The Shipping Company will also produce to the Meat Company a certificate as to the efficiency of the machinery. Clause 18: The Meat Company may decline to ship meat in any vessel in which the meat has been repeatedly damaged. Clause 19 : All meat received by ships shall be deemed to have been received by them as properly frozen and in good condition, and the Shipping Company agrees not to receive on board, from any person or company whatever, any meat found to be soft or otherwise not in good condition, and no goods other than frozen meat shall be received into the meat chambers on board ships, unless the same be tendered in a thoroughly frozen condition. I may also add that we go further than that, and have sent one of our staff Home to see that the meat is landed in proper condition. If Clause 37 of the Bill was passed it might override our contract with the shipping company, and make the shipping company more lax than they are at the present time. A meat-freezing company's business requires the greatest watchfulness, and we have continually to strain every effort to see that the shipping companies are carrying out their contract faithfully. 64. You would say that the meat companies should be left to look after the ships?—No; I would rather suggest this clause : " That in all instances where the freezing company has made due provision for the carrying out of clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (2), subsection (3) of clause 37, the same shall be considered as complying with the conditions of the Act." If, however, a freezing company is clearly neglecting its duty it would certainly be in the interests of the trade that it should be forced to come within the lines of other companies. 65. Mr. Wason.} Who would be the judge as to whether the Act was being complied with?—l should think the Inspector would be sufficient to report to the Stock Department ; and should say that the head of the department would be the person to decide whether or not the company is complying with the Act. I think that Mr. Waymouth has dealt pretty fully with the clause to which we take a stronger objection—to allowing a Justice of the Peace, even as a Justice of the Peace, to inspect our books —than he does. 66. Hon. the Chairman.] With reference to clause 56—compensation. Do you hold with Mr. Waymouth there ?—I would point out that this is a new clause, in which the Stock Department for the first time seeks to place the loss on particular shoulders—on the shoulders of the person who actually had the meat killed. He has no redress, I take it, if this is passed. There have been instances in Christchurch of cattle known to be diseased being put into the yards and sold. The unfortunate butcher who bought them had to suffer the loss. In one instance, he entered an action against the seller, and gained the action. Under this clause, I take it, he would be debarred from taking any action. Mr. Ritchie : The clause does not affect the case mentioned. It only provides that no compensation shall be payable by the Government for cattle slaughtered by order of the Inspector. Witness : I take it, that if a man is known to have put a diseased beast into the sale-yards, he should be made to suffer the loss. Hon. the Chairman : This clause simply means that compensation shall not be paid by the Government. The parties to buying and selling are left as they are at present. Witness : Then as to clause 32, subsection (3): "It shall not be lawful for any person to slaughter any stock in an abattoir or meat-export slaughter-house without the written permit of an Inspector." I think that should be altered, in the case, at any rate, of large works, killing many thousands a day. It should be the duty of the Stock Department to have an Inspector always at our disposal. We have to start work at all hours ; and it would never do to keep three or four thousand stock waiting. Mr. Duncan: You would have to apply for the permit some days before, Witness : I quite agree with all that has been said as to branding. We have made a very large number of experiments about indelible brands, and some of our men are now working to bring out a brand that will not puncture the skin. If the skin is broken in any way the carcase " weeps," and becomes Very much disfigured and discoloured. lam certain that it would interfere very much with the market-value at Home ; but we may yet discover a method of branding. Until we do, I think the word " brand " ought to come out of the Bill. Mr. Ritchie : You may see by the interpretation clause that " brand " may include any tag or label bearing any brand-mark. If we find the indelible brand injurious, as you suggest, we could fall back on the tag or label—Yes, I notice that in the interpretation clause. 67. Hon. the Chairman.] Is that all you have to say generally, Mr. Anderson ?—Yes. 68. With reference to grading, the department wishes to ask you the same question asked Mr. Waymouth, whether you would have any objection to a Government grader if his duties were limited "to deciding as between first and second quality, and not with regard to breeds?— Yes, we should object to that, because there are very various opinions as to where first or second quality should come in. My idea might be very much higher than that of the Government Inspector as

1.-8

12

to second quality. I think the Government grading, if any, should be limited to saying that certain carcases of meat are not fit to be frozen. . 69. Mr. Buchanan.'] Would you explain your grounds for this?—l take it that in a wet season we find some lambs that are " back in the tail," and, as far as we can tell from outward handling, these are fit to kill; but when killed they are so miserably thin in the flanks as to be mere " lanterns ;" and these should not be exported. I think that one Government Inspector is all that is wanted, who, by going through the rows of sheep after killing, would be able to pick out any that are either absolutely unsightly, or " lanterns," or blue in the leg, and so on. Ido not think he would find many as a rule, although in former years there have been sheep exported that should not have been sent Home. 70. Mr. Wason.] Do I understand that you would advocate Government inspection provided that the Inspector's duties were limited ? —I have no objection to Government inspection in factories, only as to what is not fit to freeze. 71. Do you not think it would be very difficult to define the duties of the Inspector ? I have seen meat sent Home so fat that it was condemned for the market there ?—I should propose to limit the duties of the Inspector to saying whether the sheep were too thin or in bad condition. 72. Cannot sheep be in bad condition by being too fat as well as too thin ? Do you not think it brings up the whole question of grading?—l think grading should be struck out of the Bill altogether. I believe the interests of the trade would be better served by leaving grading alone in the meantime. 73. Mr. Laivry.] I understand Mr. Anderson to make the statement that a very large proportion of the stock killed is unfit for human consumption ?—I meant a considerable number of the cattle. I did not refer to sheep. 74. What percentage do you mean by a large proportion? —Well, it would be very difficult to say; but there is no doubt that a large number of cattle killed—not so much lately but some time ago—were affected with tuberculosis. 74a. Are you speaking of Christchurch or of the colony generally?—l am speaking of Canterbury. 75. What became of the diseased meat ?—lt was sent to the vats. I think that the Government Inspectors should be empowered to send all meat of questionable character to the vats. The freezing companies provide a means for disposal by boiling down cattle of all descriptions; and no meat, that is in any way unsound, should be either frozen or preserved. 76. Mr. Buchanan.'] The Glasgow meat business is generally understood to be very closely looked after. I remember seeing sheep and cattle of the description that you call " lanterns " sold there, and know the purposes to which they were put. Old sheep and " lanterns " are rolled up into spiced hams, &c.—they are admittedly perfectly healthy. Suppose the New Zealand farmer is able to make sixpence more out of his lambs in this way than by any other—perhaps to save them from starving—why should you give the Inspector power to say that the lambs shall not be exported?—Of course I should prefer that the Government left us alone to meet the cases as they arise. 77. In other words the word " inspection " that you have used repeatedly in your evidence, would mean health-inspection ?—Yes. 78. Let us take a case : An animal, as frequently happens with sheep, has suffered from inflammation. The sheep has recovered, but the lungs are all more or less stuck to the ribs: an Inspector could not say that the animal is diseased as there is nothing left except these lesions. Should that sheep be permitted to go into the tins?—l should certainly say, put it in the tins. Although the disfigurement might interfere with its being frozen, it is perfectly good for preserving. I may add that we have to draw the bulk of our preserved meat from station merinos in dry seasons when they have to be killed to save them from starvation. 79. You would then permit, subject to a health point of view, all classes of stock to be exported if it suited the settlers' purposes to do so?—My idea is that we ought to do nothing that will deteriorate the value of our flocks from a grower's point of view. The export of meat was started for the purpose of putting value on our stock, and if we do anything that interferes with the value of the stock to the grower we shall do a very great injury to the country. 80. Do your Ohristchurch freezing companies slaughter many cattle ?—No ; cattle are virtually not grown in Canterbury—the number is a mere bagatelle. 81. The statement that disease existed in considerable numbers of cattle prompted my question?— There are virtually no cattle exported from Canterbury. 82. As to "pregnancy " —do you consider pregnancy a bar to tinning?— Not to tinning. It is to selling locally, or to freezing. 83. Mr. Ritchie.] " Advanced pregnancy " are the words?—l do not take any objection to that —there is no doubt you would not offer such meat for sale locally, nor would you attempt to freeze it; but there is no reason why a large proportion of the meat should not be preserved. I agree with Mr. Nelson's remarks on the subject. 84. Mr. Buchanan.] As to compensation, suppose a butcher inspects a pen of sheep at the Addington Yards, and buys them with his eyes open, and two or three per cent, turn out to be diseased, would you make the owner liable ?—Yes, I would, if he knew they were diseased. 85. Who would you define the owner to be in case the sheep had passed through several hands before being sold in the yards ?—lf we bought the sheep we should go for the man who sold them to us, and he would have recourse against the man he purchased from. 86. Can you inform us whether there is any branch of trade carried on with such a liability on the part of the seller ?—Yes, I think most merchandise is bought with a warranty that it is as described by the seller. 87. With regard to the question of branding, I understand that the Stock Department says that, even if power is given in the Bill, it does not desire to compel the use of brands that would injure the carcases in the way you describe. Is it in your opinion wise to give any department

13

T.—B

power in that direction, seeing that the Inspectors must necessarily vary in their opinions, and might harass the trade of any freezing company ? —lt would certainly be necessary to safeguard it. 88. Mr. Lawry.] I understand you to say that there was a number of diseased cattle sold at Addington saleyards, and subsequently condemned?— Yes, I have seen reports in the newspapers that it was so. 89. Have you any system of inspection of cattle there?— You can scarcely call it a system. It has been clearly proved that the County Councils have utterly failed to attend to their business in this respect. 90. Does not the Government Inspector of Stock go out to inspect ?—Yes; there is the Inspector of the Stock Department, and also the servant of the County Council whose duty it is to report upon what cattle are not healthy. There is no doubt, judging from reports appearing in the newspapers, that there have been many cattle killed that turned out to be unhealthy. 91. Is it not the practice in Canterbury to condemn them alive in the yards ?—Yes, sometimes ; but there have been cases that cattle condemned have been subsequently sold to the butcher. 92. Is not the Inspector who does that neglecting his duty ? Mr. Ritchie : The Inspector is present at Addington sale-yards every sale-day, and every beast that he finds with any visible signs of disease he orders to be destroyed at once. But a beast may not be found to be diseased until after it goes to the slaughter-yards. 93. Mr. Lawry.] To your knowledge, has there been any complaint in Canterbury, as in Auckland, that the Inspectors have been over-zealous in the discharge of their duty —that they have condemned cattle which were subsequently proved to be absolutely fit for human food ?—Well, I do not think the public in Canterbury have been alive to the facts at all. 94. I think, before Mr. Anderson leaves, that it is understood that he qualifies his statement as to disease existing among cattle and swine in Canterbury by saying that his knowledge is only derived from newspaper reports ? Do you know it of your own knowledge ?—Yes ; we have had to send both cattle and pigs to the vats.* Mr. Jambs Fobbesteb, Christchurch, examined. Mr. Forrester, who appeared on behalf of the butchers, said, with reference to Clause 26 : The petition forwarded by the butchers covers that clause. We take exception to the clause as a whole, it ought to be expunged from the Bill; or the words, " for human consumption throughout the colony" should be erased—that would meet our views. We should wish to be put on the same footing as the freezing-companies as regards inspection. Mr. Ritchie explained that the butchers would be on the same footing : that no meat should be killed for export unless an Inspector were present; but that in an ordinary slaughterhouse it was not thought necessary to have an Inspector. Witness : Section 30, subsection (2) : " Eecord of stock slaughtered to be kept in slaughterbook." We also take objection to this. It would be impossible for any butcher doing a fair trade to comply with that subsection. He would almost require a special book-keeper to do so. We agree with the meat companies in this respect. Subsection (3) of clause 32 :" Stock not to be slaughtered without Inspector's permit." This would also cause a great deal of trouble, having to run after the Inspector at all hours of the day. During the summer season we never know until the evening before what we shall require for the next day's sales. I would suggest that a weekly notice would meet the case. Section 42, subsection (2) (providing that brands on skins shall not be destroyed): The butchers always leave the ears on the head, not on the skin. They might leave the ears on the skin, but it is not their practice, and the fellmongers object to this being done. Clause 56 (no compensation for stock or meat destroyed). This is our main objection. We strongly object to this. 95. Mr. Ritchie.] You know it is the law already ?—I know it is the law. I may say that I was sorry to hear the remark made by Mr. Anderson as to there being a number of diseased cattle in Canterbury. I have been butchering for thirty-five years—something like eight hundred head of cattle a year; and to my knowledge there is not one per cent, of the cattle that go through the Addington yards and into the hands of the butchers that can be called diseased. Last year we received over four hundred head of cattle from the Wairarapa and Palmerston, and there was not a single beast that any objection could be taken to. Bearing upon this point I will state a case. About six weeks ago a grazier in the Papanui district sold to a dealer, Mr. Bennetts, seven head of cattle which were brought to Addington yards all in good condition. I bought one of them, and Mr. Cunningham, the Inspector of the Selwyn County Council, said "I shall want to see that beast slaughtered." Shortly after the pen of cattle were sold he again came to me and asked if I would allow him to have another of these cattle slaughtered. I agreed ; and these two were condemned and also two others out of the same seven. I happened to buy one of these, and my argument is that it will be very hard if there is to be no compensation for the butcher. One butcher might have bought the whole seven of these cattle and would have had to bear a loss of, say, £28. I am given to understand that the grazier had a knowledge of something being wrong with the herd* I should think the producer should give a guarantee to the dealer that stock is fit for human consumption, and that we should look for compensation to the party giving that guarantee. 96. Hon the Chairman.] What was the matter with these particular cattle ?—lt was cancer. 97. Was there any outward sign ?—Just a little round the head. 98. Had you any suspicion yourself that it was cancer, or was it the Inspector's ?—No; they fancied that was the disease, and it turned out to be right. +

* The number of cattle destroyed by the Inspector of Stock during the past eighteen months (up to November, 1897) at Addington yards and neighbourhood of Christchurch is eighty head, Several of these were taken to the Islington works for the purpose of being killed and converted into manure. t The Inspector's report is that the cattle referred to were affected with tuberculosis. (See Mr. Gilruth's Report, page 9, queries 28 and 29,)

I.—B

14

99. It was a suspicion that it was cancer that made the Inspector apply for slaughtering under inspection ?—Yes ; this occurred about six weeks ago. Mr. Lawry : I would respectfully submit the Inspector neglected his duty. In Auckland the cattle would not have been permitted to be sold. Witness : He allows them to be sold, but he immediately intimates to the purchaser that he need not pay for the cattle until he gets a permit. He arranges that they need not be paid for until after they are killed under his supervision. In the event of this Bill not passing, the butchers would suggest that something should be done, say by an addition to the old Act to remedy this on their behalf. There is no guarantee given at present. 100. Hon. the Chairman.] I understand you to say that the producer would know in this case that the meat was not fit for human consumption?—Of course, he might not know, but the producer has a far better opportunity of judging what the cattle are than the butcher who goes into the yard and buys on the moment. In every other business the producer in selling guarantees that the goods sold are not utterly worthless. It would also help the producer, as in the event of his guaranteeing his stock he would always get an enhanced price. 101. Do you think it should be optional with the producer to give a guarantee ?—I think it should not be optional. 102. What amendment would you have in the clause ? —I would have it that the producer be held responsible. 103. Mr. Flatman.) I should like to know whether, in the case of the cattle purchased at Addington yards, there was any visible swelling? —I did not detect any. Had they not been in good condition one might have been careful, but they were really fine cattle. The producer has the name of producing really fine stock. I may say that he voluntarily made a refund to the dealer after the sale, though not to the full amount. 104. Mr. Buchanan.] Did you yourself see any of these diseased cattle after they were killed ?— No, I did not see any of them. 105. Yet the Inspector declared that they were cancerous about the head and neck, although you, with such experience among stock, were not able to see any sign of it ?—I saw none. 106. Do you not consider that most extraordinary?— Well, of course he makes it his business to inspect as an expert. Of course we have no time to do that sort of thing. He might have known where the cattle came from, or what was to be expected from this herd, and having found one in the pen his attention would be directed more particularly to the others. No one but an expert could have had a suspicion as to there being anything the matter. 107. You put a large number of cattle through your hands ?—Yes. 108. You buy them singly and otherwise at Addington ?—Yes. 109. And you say that the producer should in all cases be made liable ?—Yes; he should give a guarantee that the stock sold is fit for human consumption. 110. Suppose on a sale-day at Addington you buy twenty head of cattle in several lots. I presume these are put together and driven to your yards, and then taken to the slaughter-house ? y eSt 111. And you proceed to kill them, say, a week after the sale, as suits you?— Yes. 112. Presuming that you have purchased one or more from a Timaru seller, and on slaughtering you find some are diseased that you imagine belong to him, how is the Timaru seller to be protected against possible fraud or mistake, on your part? May not a claim be made on any one that his cattle was diseased?—l must admit there might be a difficulty there. But, still, I dare say that the trade in Christchurch as a whole are not in the habit of keeping large numbers of cattle by them. It is generally a weekly supply that is purchased by three-fourths of the butchers, and they would know perfectly well where the cattle came from and who sold them, and if a provision as proposed were put in the Bill the butchers would be very careful to mark each lot as they bought them, so that they could always tell from whom they were purchased. 113. The Christchurch Meat Company is a buyer of sheep by hundreds and thousands. Do you think that what you say should apply in the case of sheep ?—I did not refer to sheep so much as to cattle. 114. Supposing the case of a North Island company which buys its hundreds of cattle. How would you suggest that the producer could be protected when these various lots of cattle got mixed up—how could the stock belonging to all the different owners be distinguished ?—The buyers would have to protect themselves before mixing their herds, and ascertain whether there was disease or not. 115. But in a case where discovery was impossible before slaughtering?—lt would be a difficult case without the buyer had the cattle some time with him. 116. Would you look at clause 19 of the Bill. You have a slaughter-house of your own ?— Yes. 117. Have you considered how that clause would affect your position in the event of an abattoir being established for the Christchurch District ? —I do not know what the intention of our legislators may be, but We are looking forward to having no license once an abattoir is erected. 118. It is confiscation practically of the appliances you had for carrying on your business ?— Yes. I have leasehold premises. Of course, there is no compensation provided for that in the Bill. I should have to give up the lease, and would get no compensation for the buildings.

Thursday, 2nd December, 1897. Mr. D. Sladden examined. 1. Hon. the Chairman.] You have heard the evidence given before the Committee by Mr, Anderson ; you were present when he gave his evidence ?—Yes,

15

L—B

2. You have had a copy of the Bill?— Yes. 3. We will adopt in your case the same plan as in the case of the other witnesses. We will first hear your statement dealing with such clauses of the Bill as you wish to speak upon ?—I will begin with the diseases clause. I heard what was said by the other witnesses, so that Ido not think I need take up much of the time of the Committee. I think that the term " advanced pregnancy " is in the wrong place. It is in the wrong place among the clauses relating to diseases. I think it ought to be borne in mind that some of the best meat we get is from pregnant female animals. If pregnancy is one of the objects of inspection it appears to me that it should be only so in the advanced stages. 4. Hon. J. McKenzie.] What do you mean by the "advanced stages" ?—I do not see why a sheep should not be in perfect health and its meat fit for food, notwithstanding pregnancy. 5. Do you not think, when the lamb becomes alive in the mother's body her meat would have undergone some deterioration?—l think not. But, even so, it is not so easily found out when pregnancy begins, or what stage it has reached. The position is this :in drafting a large number of ewes you will, maybe, get in some proportion of pregnant animals. There is no means of knowing with absolute certainty whether they are in a condition of pregnancy until you kill them. Some of them may escape notice altogether. Ewes even within a fortnight of parturition will be much better meat than ninety per cent, of all the meat in the world that is put in tins. The whole of the meat that is put in tins is practically not fit to hang up in a butcher's shop. The meat may be of inferior quality, but it has never, that I am aware of, been advanced that it was not perfectly wholesome although it might not be so palatable. In answer to the question put to me by the Minister of Lands, I may say that I do not think, for the purposes of tinning, the meat of ewes, although in a condition of pregnancy, would be in any way inferior to the bulk of the meat tinned either here or in any other part of the world. The same argument holds good of other classes of meat of inferior quality, which, although not fit to hang in the butcher's shop, are perfectly wholesome. I think this clause providing for inspection will have to be exercised with a good deal of discretion, otherwise the result may be great damage by rendering valueless a great deal of valuable meat. I have set a mark against subsection (2) of clause 3, as to the bond fide farmer. It seemed to me in reading over this Bill that the farmer is going to be greatly hampered with the pig business. Ido not offer any suggestion in the matter, but I know that it is a very large trade in some parts of New Zealand : there is, indeed, a very large trade carried on in dead pork. I can very well understand that it would be an advantage to have it all killed under inspection. lam afraid the department will find some difficulty in this, especially if the pigs are to be killed in licensed slaughterhouses where there is no regular inspection. That is a matter, I think, which requires some attention. Then, there is subsection (3), clause 4: " With respect to every description of stock, except swine, the rights by subsection two of the last-preceding section hereof conferred upon any such farmer shall not apply in certain cases." Ido not know that I quite follow the intention of the Bill. Why except swine? With respect to abattoirs, I have nothing to say on that question. I think that inspection for health is a good thing. I think it will have a beneficial effect. One effect will certainly be to satisfy the public mind that disease among stock in New Zealand is much less than is generally supposed. Inspection for health is therefore a good thing. Now I will go on to the export-meat slaughterhouses. With respect to the butchers' slaughterhouses I have no remark to make ; but with regard to meat-export slaughterhouses I do not think that an application for renewal should be necessary. I think it would be sufficient if the department gave notice that anything was unsatisfactory; application for renewal being necessary might lead in some circumstances to rather awkward conditions. I come next to the proviso in section 25 : " Provided that, in the case of the ' meat-export' slaughterhouses mentioned in the Second Schedule hereto, the provisions of subsections one and two of section twenty, and subsections one, two, and three of section twenty-one, hereof, shall be deemed to have been duly complied with." I take it that that is only for the first year; for the second year I take it that the applicant under this Act will have to make his application for the succeeding year. I think it is not necessary to encumber the meat slaughterhouses with that; the Justices have sufficient powers. 6. Mr. Ritchie.'] You renew your license every year. But suppose you were ill, and the meat was frozen before you could apply; or suppose that the public body did not meet in the period within which you should make your application, and consequently your license is not granted by the Ist of January, they cannot give you one for the year. The grading comes under section 27 : " The Governor may from time to time appoint fit persons to be Inspectors, Graders, and other officers for the purposes of this Act, and may define their duties, functions, and powers, and specify the districts and slaughtering places for meat-export in respect of which they shall exercise the same: Provided that no person (other than a duly-qualified veterinary surgeon) shall be appointed as Inspector unless he has passed the prescribed examination before the Government Veterinarian appointed for the purpose, and has obtained from him a certificate that he is competent to perform the duties of an Inspector under this Act." This is referred to in other places under the head "Grading?" —I think the department will find, for the first year or two, that the work of inspection for health alone will be very considerable. If they provide the necessary staff, and get them properly educated for their work, they will have accomplished a good deal; if they encumber the department with all the questions connected with grading, they will, in my opinion, be trying to do too much. I have no hesitation in saying that it is a difficult thing to get competent graders. I am satisfied that the Stock Department has not in its employment the men who could do all the sorts of work that is required, if the duties are to. be properly carried out. But the people who buy know what they want, and expect to get it. It requires a great deal of experience for this work. It costs us a great deal to educate the men who class for us, and bring them to the standard of the reports we

16

T.-8

receive from London. The result is that we have so far succeeded that the buyers have been satisfied with the uniform quality of the meat; they accept our standard ; that being the case shows that the companies are doing all that is necessary in this direction. I understand from Mr. Eitchie, what he proposes would be to secure the services of some of the best men who have been trained by the freezing-works. I think that is his best course to adopt. I think there could be no stronger evidence of my contention than that fact. The persons who are to decide the class of meat ought to be competent men. Ido not know that it is necessary that they should be veterinary surgeons, but they must be trained to the business. lamin a position to satisfy any committee, that we have, to a considerable extent, done away with what has been the bugbear to every freezing company—that is, the survey for quality in London. Ido not say that we can sell all our meat without that, but we are selling a large quantity. Mr. Eitchie has explained that he does not propose to go into classing in a great number of cases. But if he will make two classes, one class may be taken as first class and the second as fit to freeze, but not fit to go to London as first-class meat. Ido not see how he is going to educate his staff to do this. There is no part of New Zealand the meat from which is not of a different standard. And, apart altogether from the question of quality, the question of breed comes in here. If the department is to be of any value it must look to this. The meat trade is different to the butter trade. If your uniform grade is established you know that a good cow gives good milk, and of good milk you can make good butter, and that it is owing to bad management if the butter is not good. But the stockowner grows his stock to suit himself; he may keep them as long as he thinks proper for the sake of the wool, or may fatten them for the butcher, or keep them till they get too old for freezing. What is the best market is the question for him. It is healthy meat, although it may not be up to the highest standard. But he knows what the buyer will give, and the only remaining question is the difference between the meat-market and boiling-down prices, so that in any case the best price is secured. A Member : Provided that it is healthy. Witness : Yes ; lam quite in accord with inspection for sanitary purposes. Mr. Gilruth has told us that the United Kingdom is the only one of the more important European nations where meat is not properly inspected : that on the Continent of Europe they found it difficult to understand how it was the English people could be satisfied to go on in the way they did. I have no doubt what he says about that is true. lam led to believe that the severity of inspection on the European Continent was rendered necessary in consequence of the horrible stuff they used to eat. He also told us they ate horse-flesh, which they seemed to like better than beef. We know from public record that some terrible diseases were rife in the conditions that existed before the system of inspection was established. I think the reason meat is eaten in the United Kingdom without inspection is that it is generally believed that the stock is not diseased. We have not suffered to the same extent as other places. It has been tried a good many times to educate the British public by its colonies; but I may say that I have never seen any attempt made on the part of the colonies to educate the British public that has net been a financial failure. Indeed, the British public are not inclined to be educated by us. Next, as to putting on our meat a mark or brand, I think that will only narrow our trade without getting any advantage from it. Mr. Gilruth thinks we will reap a benefit from it, but there is nothing to show that inspection will carry our meat into the Continental markets. We do know that vested rights . are so strong that there will always be a difficulty to get it in at all. It appears to me that this mark is not wanted. I think it will be wrong to make any new departure by putting a permanent mark on all our meat. There is, however, one advantage claimed for it, namely, that it will prevent Argentine and Australian meat from being sold as New Zealand meat. I doubt this .very much. The butcher who is buying knows perfectly well what he is buying without any mark at all. He makes no mistake. He knows perfectly well what goes into consumption, and that he will find his own price for it. He knows what he wants to hang up in his shop. Ido not see how he will be protected by any such mark. Now, with regard to the inspection provided in clause 37, " When meat-export certificate may be issued." The person holding the certificate must see that the meat is in good condition and free from disease; the meat must have been graded either by himself or some other qualified person; he must be competent to know that the meat has been properly preserved by freezing, chilling, salting, or otherwise, and properly packed, and that the ship is in a proper condition to receive and properly equipped with all appliances necessary for the safe carriage thereof in good order and condition. Now, the man who would be able to do all that must have had considerable experience as a refrigerating engineer to begin with; he must have a knowledge not only of one particular process, but of all the processes that are practised on board ship—the carbonic-acid-gas process, the ammonia process, and all the other systems that are in vogue aboard ships. I venture to say there are only two or three men in New Zealand who have the experience necessary for such an inspection. Such an inspector must inspect the insulation ; see that the atmosphere of the hold is kept at a sufficiently low temperature ; he must look to the engines. I therefore think the department is going to encumber itself with more work than it can be reasonably expected to undertake. Then, as to clause 38, "The particulars to be marked on tinned meat" : I may state with respect to this that the tinned-meat trade, like many other trades, has certain well-defined rules. The square tower or pyramid tins are made on an American plan. They are supposed to hold 21b., but they have never held 21b., and those who buy them know they do not contain 21b. You may say it would be easy to make them so that they would hold 2 lb. That is quite true. But the buyer knows perfectly what they hold. But this American 21b. tin is something like your "pint" and ;: quart" bottles: no one is deceived by them. The tins were originally made small—because the tin plates being 14 by 20 made this necessary, and the body-piece being the largest that can be got to make four out of one plate. I was speaking to Mr. Osborne a short time ago. He is a man that

17

I.—B

buys a great deal and knows what he is buying. Under this clause (38), " Tinned meat shall not be deemed to be duly marked unless each tin, and also each case or other package wherein the tins are packed, are distinctly and indelibly stamped or marked with the following particulars: (1) The words ' New Zealand' ; (2) the name of the exporter or owner, and also his registered trademark, if any ; (3) the net weight and true name and description of the contents." With respect to this, I might say that the tinned-meat trade has certain well-defined rules like many other trades— the " square tower " or " pyramid " tins are made on the American model, and are supposed to hold 2 lb. weight, but as a matter of fact they never have held 2 lb. If you want a bigger tin you cannot have it without sending to America for a new pattern and a plant for making that sized tin, which alone would cost between £6,000 and £7,000, for all the New Zealand factories. The buyers of these 21b. tins would object to the weight being marked on them. Ido not see why there should be any interference with them, seeing that they have become a rule of trade, any more than the Government should interfere with "pint" and "quart" bottles. Seeing that the preserved meat is run with so much difficulty and so little profit, I think it is wrong to encumber it with such interference. It is easy to say that the trade should be run on other lines, but I may state to the Committee that all the profit of the last few years in this department has accrued from the fact that the company has been able to pay Bd. or 9d. for lean meat of fat ewes after cutting the legs off; and, according to information I possess, the meat-preserving works in Australia have just as small a margin. Then, as regards clause 43, " Any Justice may at any time inspect the skins of any stock that have been, or appear from the slaughter-book to have been, slaughtered in any slaughtering-place, and the manager or licensee shall, if so requested, furnish to such Inspector or Justice a full and satisfactory account, showing from whom such skins were received, and to whom and in what manner they have been sold or disposed of." I take it that this clause applies more particularly where skins are removed and sold. Skins are mostly dealt with on the spot. Mr. Wason : It is not so with us. Witness : Well, it may be only a few yards away—a few doors off; and that makes no practical difference. 7. Hon. the Chairman.] What about the Justice clause as to inspection of books, &c. ?—No person likes the details of his business to be made more public than is necessary. Having this clause (43), it appears to me all that is wanted is that the Inspectors under the Act and the police should have the power to enter, &c. I cannot see any reason for the inspection of books by Justices. You have also clause 45 : " Any Justice, Inspector, or constable may without warrant enter any place or premises whatsoever at any time of the day or night where there is cause to suspect that stolen stock exist or have been slaughtered, or are intended to be slaughtered, and may make such search or inquiry therein as he deems necessary for the discovery of the offence and the offender." Having these two clauses to authorise Inspectors or the police to act, Ido not see what more is wanted. I heard some gentleman say that he had seen employes going through the consignment-cards of another company's trucks of stock to see who was the consignor. Referring again to pigs, I think that in the regulations to be made they should be kept at a sufficient distance from any slaughterhouse (clause 49). According to subsection (2), you must not allow them to wander, or to be housed or " penned," within fifty yards of any slaughtering-place. But you'must pen them in a slaughterhouse to kill them. They should be immediately slaughtered. Then, with regard to fees (clause 54) for inspection : I think that a maximum fee should be fixed, for I am afraid, as with the stock-tax, this will soon become a source of revenue for revenue purposes. We have had an instance of this under the Slaughterhouse Act, where the local bodies have been allowed to collect -J-d. per sheep. The Hutt and the Petone County Councils collected revenue in this way amounting to hundreds of pounds, 8. Ron. J. McKenzie.] You are opposed to this Bill?—No; the main principle of this Bill is inspection, and in that 1 am with you. 9. But you are opposed to grading ?—Yes. 10. You see the reports coming from the Old Country in regard to the meat that is sent Home from this colony?— Yes. 11. Is not the mutton sent Home depreciated and reduced in price owing to the unsatisfactory system that prevails?—No; I think that the trouble arises from the rapid increase in the output of frozen meat from all countries. 12. How do you account for the large percentage of damaged meat that arrives in London?— Ido not give any opinion, for I never see the meat after it leaves here. The circumstances that have come to be known are more than sufficient to prove that some of the damage at all events has been caused aboard ship. 13. You are aware of the complaints that have been made upon this subject by our people at Home ? —My own advices inform me that the claims on insurance companies are much smaller than they were. It would seem from the correspondence upon this subject that certain firms are dilatory in taking delivery of the meat when it arrives in London. In some cases it is put back. Delivery ought to be taken on the spot, but I have heard of cases where it has been put back from one to three times. 14. You know that recent reports from the Agent-General, supplied to the department, show that a large quantity of meat was in a bad condition in the ship ? —Possibly ; but I do not think the quantity damaged is so much as people think. We sell nearly the whole of our meat c.i.f. London. It is very rarely that our correspondents refer to the matter, as the whole of our meat has been sold. 15. Do you know that the recent reports we have had from Home prove the fact that the sheep are not sufficiently frozen, for there was considerable " bone-stink " ?—I do not think there has been any "bone-stink" in the meat sent from Wellington. 16. But it exists?— Yes, I believe it has occurred. 17. Do you think it follows that if the Government does its duty properly it should assist to prevent that ? —Yes. 3—l. 8.

I.—B

18

18. I suppose you do the work in a proper manner; but, if other companies do not do the same as you, a bad impression will be created and a great deal of injury will be done ?—The whole thing has been much exaggerated. It is preventible, and I can hardly understand the existence of " bone-stink," seeing that it is the interest of all parties to prevent it—both the shippers here and the consignees in London. 19. Does your company freeze for any other person beside yourself ?—Yes, but we buy nearly all the stock that we freeze. 20. Suppose that person sent you two hundred sheep to be frozen, how would you exercise control ?—Any sheep which we considered not up to our standard we should set aside ; an inferior but still healthy sheep fit to freeze would, of course, be frozen and shipped, but we would not put the company's brand on it. 21. You grade for yourself?— Yes. 22. If you put them in your own shipments you grade them ?—Yes. 23. Could not the Government do that as well as you?—l do not think so; our company is thoroughly conversant with the requirements of the trade. 24. You are not responsible for the shipments you send Home ?—Not if we ship without a brand. But the meat is sold. Compared with Argentine and Australian meat, and having no New Zealand brand on it, it probably gets the best market the owner can get for it. 25. Does it not injure New Zealand mutton as a whole, that mutton of that class should go Home ?—I am rather doubtful of that. It is better than Australian ;it is better than Argentine meat; it is even better than a great deal of Home-grown meat. Surely it is too good for cutting up. 26. But you do freeze them ? —Why object? Other companies do it. It appears to me that the object of this Act is to bring the meat grader and freezer into accord with the buyer. The buyer is the best judge of what he wants ; he comes to the company, who give him what he wants. It is different with the butter trade. The Government by stepping in can help to make good butter; but you cannot make a six-year-old wether other than he is. 27. That was the argument made by the dairy people; but our object now is to improve New Zealand mutton and to improve the price that can be got for it. If we cannot do that, we are of no use sitting here. You say it is difficult to educate the great British public; have they not been educated ?—No ; I do not think so. 28. Have not Canada and other States forced them to educate themselves in the matter of improving butter ? —lt has not educated the customer. 29. Are they not importing experts from Canada and other places to teach them to make good butter?— Yes. 30. Has not that educated the public ?—Not the customer. The customer will take the best he can get. The passing of an Act through the New Zealand Legislature will not have any effect on those who do not care anything about it. 31. You think it will give no advantage?—l do not think so. With respect to the mark, some people say that you can put on a mark without damaging the animal, but I think the mark will damage it. You must remember there are many things which you can do with a single carcase which you cannot do with a thousand. 32. You say that you have been able to get a good price on account of your careful grading, and being careful in respect to what you send Home ?—What I said was that we were able to sell without recourse to arbitration. 33. That shows that you have gained the confidence of the public at Home ?—The Stock Department could not have got that without our information. We have trained our staff carefully for the purpose. It is a matter of experience requiring careful training and observation. 34. You say you have succeeded by keeping a staff up to date with every kind of necessary information ?—I said that we have brought our graders and classers into the closest touch with buyers. 35. Is it not open to us to do the same thing?—No; for your department does not know all the little details. 36. But we can learn ?—We know every thousand sheep that come in. You cannot do anything except getting men such as those we have educated and trained to the work. 37. My contention is this : that the fact of your company and other companies being able to do this in a proper manner is a reason why any one else might do it. Every other company could do the same; their interest in the result would make them equal to anything that might be required of them ? —I have no doubt the object of this Bill is good; but still, I think you have undertaken a very large task. I think it would have been better to have started with an inspection for health, and then, when you would have got your department under control, and you thought other abuses might be remedied, it would be time enough to take up those other matters. 38. Just look at section 39. You see there we have taken powers to suspend operations ?—Yes, I see that; it reminds me of the Premier's clause in the Old-age Pensions Bill, which means that nobody is to be disappointed if it does not come off. 39. If we have put this power in the Bill to suspend operations if we thought we were not able to do good work, what objection can you raise to that ?—lt is too much in the negative direction. I think you will find this business very onerous. I think you should proceed gradually. 40. When we know there is wrong being done we must not shrink from our duty. And now, with regard to the inspection of slaughterhouses ? —I do not think much of that. Was it ever intended that one man, being a J. P., might come and inspect your books? 41. I could tell you of one hundred and fifty sheep being stolen, having been taken out of a paddock and driven to Wellington. If there had not been in the Act powers for the inspection of skins that crime of sheep-stealing would never have been discovered?—My experience is that sheep-stealers in the South are more astute than you think. There are so many Justices inter-

19

I.—B

ested in this business there is a good deal of jealousy. If I wanted to know who the Gear Companywere getting sheep from I might, as a J. P., demand to sse their books. 42. And now, with regard to shipping, I was sorry to hear you tell the Committee there were so few men in the colony that could do this work ? —There are so many things that one man must know—for example, he would have to judge the insulation; to judge of the machinery, whether it was sufficient. 42a. Have you not men in your works thoroughly competent to judge of that without any special experience ?—One man cannot use all these different systems. You would require a man to attend to the freezing; to look after the engine and see that the machinery is in good workingorder ; who would be able to judge whether the machinery is of the class you require. But several classes of machinery have come into use during the past few years; he would have to be a judge of these. 43. Do you not think there should be some control over the ship and cargo ?—As far as that is concerned, I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion. In my opinion most of the damage arises from insufficient power, or want of power. The Tyser line, for instance, which has greater power than most others, will carry their sheep with scarcely any damage. 44. You recommend that a sorting-shed should be established?— Yes. It might be established in the dock, where the consignee might take delivery of the sheep. By this means the damage would be discovered at once, and whatever damage there was on board the ship could be lessened, and it would also be located. I think we should know something about that. I suggested last year that the Government should take one or two ships, and get hold of one or two good men, and let them go with each ship until she discharged her meat in London. They would get a lot of experience that way. Hon. J. McKenzie : That is a very good suggestion, and if an opportunity occurs we might do it by way of experiment. 45. Mr. Buchanan.] As regards damage, does it not in most cases arise from the impossibility of sheeting home the responsibility to those who are to blame—to the people who have the handling of the meat after it is landed in London—in other words, the present insurance policy covers the meat from the time it leaves the meat company's store until a certain time after landing in London ; therefore, the ship may have actually landed the meat in an indifferent or bad condition, and it is never discovered?— That is so. I had that in my mind when referring to the desirability of an assorting-shed. We have evidence of meat having been delivered in very good condition, and yet after a while heavy claims were made against the insurance companies. There is one instance where, the meat having been sent to Scotland, the purchaser refused to take it, and returned it to London, and when it was sold a claim was made against the insurance company for damage. 46. You say, then, that the establishment of a store such as you describe would not only sheet home the damage, but would also locate it ?—Yes. 47. As to inspection for disease, would you think the Government justified in not putting an Inspector into each slaughterhouse unless he had a veterinary surgeon's certificate?— That is one of the difficulties that the Government will have to cope with. The man must at least have some veterinary knowledge : when a man condemns a sheep he ought to be able to say what is the matter with it. I think Mr. Ritchie said it would require fifty men. The Government can hardly expect the services of fifty veterinary surgeons. I do not raise any objections to the inspection. lam quite willing to leave that to the Government. lam in entire sympathy with it. 48. A Member.] For health purposes?— Suppose a grading of first- and second-class be given, what are you to do for a grader, to carry out the grading that is insisted on ; you will then have to get another man. You might be able sometimes to get the services of an intelligent butcher from the slaughter-board, but without these adventitious aids the Government would cease to learn anything—the whole thing would stand at the point that had been reached. But the position is this : you will be brought into contact with severe competition, and you will require your men to keep up a high standard for your meat. The Government must admit that this requires considerable knowledge. lam supposing that the scheme involved in this Bill is carried out with respect to health inspection and grading. 49. Mr. Buchanan.] Then there would be two staffs—one for inspection and the other for grading ?—Yes. 50. And a third for looking after the marking? —Yes; for looking after the marking: but one man could do a good deal in that way. 51. You have pointed out that this Bill discloses a want of knowledge of details of trade in regard to the requirements for marking tins ?—Yes ; I do not see why the Government should not see that the meat is properly cooked, properly tinned, and properly shipped, just as much as that it is not properly frozen. Mr. Gilruth : The Queensland Government do that. 52. Perhaps that is why the New Zealand tinned meat fetches so much more than Queensland? Mr. Gilruth: It was because the Queensland tinned meat did not bring so much as it ought that the Government stepped in. Witness : You see that the New Zealand preservers have been able to realise the highest prices without the assistance of the Government. 53. You have not dealt with the question of compensation to the farmer or anybody else for disease. Who, in your opinion, should suffer on account of loss from disease being discovered during slaughtering (56) ?—Whatever Act you pass, the farmer will have to pay for it. 54. Would you claim as against the farmer on the discovery of disease while slaughtering ?— As a buyer of stock I should not like to claim upon the seller; it would lead to constant friction. If the loss on stock condemned amounted to 1 per cent., for instance, I should consider it in the price paid all over the country. The only thing I can see is, to treat the slaughtering-butchers as

20

T.^-8

the owners. The public have their safeguard in the public abattoirs and meat-export slaughterhouses. In these places you have a large number of men working under the public view. If there was any question of disease it could hardly be concealed. The men themselves have a natural repugnance to diseased meat: every one says, " Chuck it out." To make the grower pay seems to me somewhat unjust—it appears to me an unjust thing that when a man has sold the animal he should be liable to a claim on account of a defect which could only be ascertained after slaughtering. 55. He might make a special contract —he could insure against it ?—You may take it that way, but in the end the producer has to pay. 56. Hon. J. McKcnzie]. In the matter of grading I understand your position to be this : that, while anxious to see inspection for health purposes carried out, you are unable to see any more reason for grading meat than for grading a hundred and one articles that might be exported from the colony ?—As far as grading is concerned, I think it will only prove an encumbrance. 57. Hon. Mr. Ormond.] Can you form any estimate of the cost of inspection for health and grading required by this Act ? If so, what would be your estimate ? —I do not know that I could give you an estimate. 58. Could you not say what number of officers would be required ? —-I am not clear whether health-inspection could be carried out with one man. Mr. Ritchie : I think we could manage it. Witness : I think the chief value of it will be in this : that the Inspector will enlist for his assistance the employes of the company. 59. Hon. Mr. Ormond.] Do you mean, then, that the inspection for the purpose of grading will be done practically by the Government ?—No; we will have to do the grading ourselves. 60. Then you think you could not adopt the Government grading?— No. 61. There would be a double expense? —We will be at the same expense. I cannot say what the expense of inspection for grading would be. 62. Do you know whether it would be chiefly for grading or for health-inspection ?—One man could do so many sheep a day. We do our grading with one man. 63. Who is your inspector for health ?—The foreman butcher is the grader. He puts his mark on anything that goes out; he puts his mark on everything that he thinks fit for the export trade, and on everything set aside for boiling. We only put the best meat on board ship. All the rest is for cutting up. We freeze all that is likely to fetch the highest prices. 64. Do I understand you that a considerable increased charge to the producer will be necessary if the Government graded the meat ? —lt would add considerably. 64a. Now, with respect to the vessels in the colony, do you remember that last year the evidence showed that in some cases the vessels were quite unfit ? Has that occurred according to your knowledge?—l may say that we seem to have been more fortunate, so far as I have been able to fix it, this year. I have a list of claims, but I am told by a correspondent that the claims are less this year. 65. As a matter of fact, the inspection of a vessel in regard to fitness could be carried out without great cost ? —Yes, without the machinery, I suppose it might. 66. Did not the evidence of last year show that such inspection could reject animals that were not sufficiently frozen?—l am rather doubtful ; the sheep go on board very rapidly. The only thing a man can do is to take sample sheep. If he went on for an hour or two doing this and found nothing wrong he would conclude that things were satisfactory. 67. Would it be difficult to get men having a knowledge of the different principles to which you have referred ?—I think the broad question of fitness might be left to proper officers, who should go on board and see that the insulation was sufficient. 68. That, you think, would be a considerable protection ?—Yes, undoubtedly. Ido not see any objection to it; it has been done by insurance surveyors from time to time. 68a. And now with regard to arrival in London : can you say that during the past year there have been many instances of taking out, putting back, and the ships returning ?—One of my correspondents referred to the fact that some consignees seemed to be remarkably dilatory in taking delivery ;in one case it was taken out of the hold and put back several times. These people seemed" to be in hopes that by leaving it alone they might get more out of the insurance companies. Insurance companies have been, I might say, almost plundered in this way. Such people have not damaged the meat; they only hope that it might be damaged. The insurance companies appear to have taken some steps to prevent that. The policy was formerly sixty days after landing in London ; now you must be satisfied with thirty days. My information is that the claims against insurance companies have been much less since. The establishment of an assortingshed would be a further advantage : every man taking his meat out would be careful to see whether it was damaged or not, as he would have no claim after it left the sorting-shed. 69. Would it not be a great advantage, in addition to the sorting-shed, that officers should report on the condition of every cargo as it arrived; whether there was any damage from ill-treat-ment : would not that obviate a considerable amount of damage now arising in England?— All the Inspectors could say is that it was landed in proper condition. On the other hand, if you have a sorting-shed, those interested will take care, if they have any claim, that it shall be made then. I do not know that the Inspectors would be of so much use. I think it would be better to pick out one or two men and let them go Home with the ship ; let them go round the colony, take all the temperatures—temperatures by land, temperatures on the way Home. They should be instructed to take the temperatures in a proper way, and not in the perfunctory way which has been usual. I think that will be an object-lesson for the colony when it is done. I said so last year. 70. Would you have it delivered immediately to the sorting-store ?—The ship would put it out. The sorting-house would be in the dock, so that it would only have to be taken a few yards.

21

I.—B

71. How do you propose to get it out if you do not do it by inspection ?—The dock store would deliver it to the consignee. I have understood that there was an arrangement that the Government and the freezing companies should pay their share—they are all agreeable to pay their share. As soon as the sorting-shed is finished the insurance policy will terminate there. You will then have a valuable remedy for much of the injury that is done, because you will be able to define where it took place. 72. You are sanguine of getting that result ? —I am, very; I understand it is only a question of time. •* 73. Mr. Wason.] You stated that you were in favour of that portion of the Bill that deals with inspection : have you any knowledge of your own on the subject ? —My experience is that the fat sheep we get are extraordinarily healthy. There is one effect of inspection that will be good—it will disabuse the public mind that there is a great deal of diseased meat about. I think people will be astonished when they see how small the quantity is. 74. Have you heard that ?—There is a great deal of talk of cancer and that sort of thing. 75. In sheep ?—Yes, I have heard it in reference to sheep. 76. Do you know anything about the Continental markets ?—I am not so sanguine as Mr. Gilruth that we will get into the Continental markets. 77. You were asked some question about marks? —-What I said was, that it would be difficult to make any mark that will not deface the surface. 78. I understood you that you saw no harm in a mark upon inspection for health ? —My own idea of a mark was a wire through the shank; but that would cut in the handling. 79. That would be only for beef ?—I have not seen any mark that could be used satisfactorily. 80. You told us about some Scotch sheep upon which claims were made against the insurance companies ?—The insurance people were not told ; that was clearly a fraud on the insurance company. 81. Mr. Massey.] Do you think it is possible to increase the price as a result of the representations made in regard to grading ?—No ; I do not think so. 82. Mr. Lawry.] As a matter of business you are careful to avoid sending anything away that is not first-class ? —All our instructions to all our employes are in that direction. 83. Mr. Flatman.] Do you not think it is detrimental to the trade this sending Home two qualities of meat ? Would it not be better to send Home all first-class ? —ln that you open up such a large question. The best quality of meat would be the Southdown crosses, Leicester and merinoes crosses. These yield the best meat in New Zealand; the Lincolns and Eomneys are not nearly so good mutton. Then, you will have enormous differences between first-class meat as at present understood from different localities. We are sending Home crossbred Southdowns for Messrs. Williams and Beetham which obtain a top price. As I have said, you can get good butter from good milk, but you cannot make good meat from a six-toothed Lincoln.

Mr. D. Sladden to Hon. the Chaieman. Sic, — Wellington, New Zealand, 3rd December, 1897. In giving evidence yesterday before your Committee I omitted to draw attention to one of the difficulties which, I think, will arise in connection with the proposals as to grading sheep. I understand that the Stock Department propose, if the Bill is carried, to secure the services of some of the men who have been trained and are employed by the freezing companies, and this would seem to be the best course that could be adopted, supposing that Parliament gives effect to the proposals. The men employed in this capacity, although in a responsible position, are only subordinate officers of the companies, and it would clearly be subversive of all discipline and order in many instances to place them suddenly in a position superior to those who had previously been over them. This much will, I suppose, be admitted by every one. It follows, therefore, that it will be almost a necessity to transfer the men from one place to another. As it has been admitted that the quality of the stock to be dealt with differs more or less at every port, it would almost appear that the men in question will cease to have any special value when they are removed from among the class of sheep to which they have been accustomed, and their experience among which would form the main if not the only reason which the Stock Department would have for securing their services. The standard of good butter and cheese will hold good all over the world, but with mutton the conditions are entirely different. It is admitted that there is a great difference between the mutton from the Australian colonies, from the Argentine, and from New Zealand; and with respect to New Zealand mutton, the Secretary for the Stock Department states that the standard of first quality must differ at every port. When this statement is read in conjunction with the proposal to draft the graders from the employes of the meat companies, it points to the fact that the companies are doing what is wanted. I am, &c, The Chairman, Stock Committee. Dilnot Sladden, Secretary.

Feiday, 3ed Decembee, 1897. Mr. Gileuth re-examined. 1, Hon. Mr. Ormond.] Will you first, Mr. Gilruth, define exactly your position in the Stock Department ? —My position is that of Senior Government Veterinary Surgeon. 2. How far do your duties put you in possession of information with regard to the inspection of cattle in the colony ?—Simply, that when I am asked by an Inspector or by a private individual to examine a herd or a particular animal, Ido so; otherwise Ido not make any general inspection; my time would not permit of it.

I.—B

22

3. But when you go into a district, the local Inspectors give you information as to what is going on ? —Yes ; if they ask me, I advise upon anything they do. 4. Then, how far are you acquainted with the condition of disease in cattle in the different parts of the colony ?—I think lam pretty well acquainted with the matter, so far as it is possible to be acquainted with it. 5. That shows that tuberculosis is pretty widespread, does it not ?—Yes ; it is in every district in the colony. .., 6. Mr. Buchanan.'] You state that for a fact ?—Yes, certainly. I may say that the evidence we have goes to show that one means of spreading tuberculosis is the use of the separator, and the frequent use of the skim-milk not boiled. If an animal has a tuberculous udder the milk it gives will be, in all probability, contaminated to a very large extent with the tubercle bacilli. This milk is mixed with that of all the rest of the cows, which is sent to the factory, and the skim-milk containing these germs is afterwards distributed all over the district. Of course the bacilli are diluted to an extent which frequently renders them not dangerous ; but if the same dose is repeated day after day there comes a time when the calf is not able to withstand it. 7. Hon. Mr. Ormond.] Would this milk be nutritive to the calf?— Yes; more especially if it were fresh, but less so if it were allowed to get sour, as is frequently the case. 8. Is it not the case, as a rule, that dairy calves are poor creatures ? —That is so in this country. 9. And, being so, they are more apt to take injury from a cause of this sort ? —Quite so. They are frequently fed solely on separated milk—sometimes under filthy conditions—and the milk allowed to coagulate. The whole of the sugar, which is the chief nutritive material in it, becomes converted into acid ; and you cannot get people to believe that when the milk is thick its food-value is deteriorated. 10. Then the presence of a tuberculous cow, with a diseased udder, in a herd is a matter of more or less danger, and will lead to the spread of the disease ?—Yes. 11. Is it easy for a skilled person to identify a tuberculous animal?—lt is not easy. 12. How much inspection would be necessary to be assured that you were having proper control of dairy cattle ?—You would require to test the whole of the animals with tuberculin at least once a year. This is an almost infallible test. 13. Then a skilled person could not go into a herd and pick out the animals that were affected with the disease ?—He could pick out a proportion of them ; it depends upon the symptoms. An animal may be very tuberculous, and show no outward sign at all. I have seen a case of a prize animal at Smithfield, which on being killed was found to be tuberculous. 14. How far does inspection go now in this respect ? How did they determine the presence of disease in the number of cattle which had to be slaughtered ?—By examination, I presume ; it really does not come under my department. 15. I see in the evidence that you say you have never seen a case of true malignant cancer in the colony ? —No; not in cattle. 16. Have you in sheep ?—Nor in sheep; not in any of the lower animals, unless in the dog, and very rarely in dogs. 17. Then what kind of cancer does exist?—Epitheliomata. 18. Tumours, I suppose? —Yes, tumours composed of cells derived from the skin or from some other part of the body which contains the same kind of cells (epithelial). 19. To what extent do you find these exist ?—I do not think I have found more than a dozen cases. 20. Have there been any cases, to your knowledge, of animals haying been destroyed on this account by order of the Inspector ?—Yes, but not many. The most frequent cases are those which occur after branding. From some reason which causes irritation you will get a running sore, which may develop into a tumour of this class. If the sore were attended to, nothing of the sort would happen, and even if the tumour is cut out in its early stages it is not likely to recur. It is simply a question of continued irritation which is neglected, like lip-cancer—due to short clay pipes—in man. In other cases the tumours sometimes occur in the region of the anus, and in one or two cases I have found them round the eye. 21. What was the condition of the animals ? Were they fit for food or not ?—I would not have considered them wholesome as food. There were running sores, most unsightly ; and the animals were going down in condition. 22. With regard to cattle suffering from tuberculous disease, is this widespread?— Well, it is all over the colony, at all events, and is more or less present in every district. 23. Can you point to any particular district where it is worse than others at the present time ? —So far as we know, it is generally worse on the west coast of this Island than in other districts ; generally speaking, it is worse wherever dairy herds are kept. 24. Does it exist mostly among herds of dairy cattle ?—Chiefly, I think ; but it is difficult to say definitely. Of course dairy herds are more easily examined, and the presence of the disease determined; they also live to a greater age, and are more liable to infection. 25. Has the number of cattle destroyed after inspection during the last two years come to your knowledge ?—Only incidentally. The returns are sent in to the department, and if I had any reason to luok at them I could do so ; I have had no occasion, so far. 26. Would you be astonished to learn that there were a very large number destroyed—fifteen hundred to two thousand—in the last year ?—No ; I believe there* may have been that number. 27. There would necessarily have been an examination? —Oh, yes ; examination in the saleyards, &c. 28. Do you think the tuberculin test would have to be conducted by a skilled person—by a veterinary surgeon ?—Not necessarily, but 1 think it would be better.

23

I.—B

29. What was the condition of these animals that were destroyed ? Were they fit for food ?— It depends upon what you consider proper food. 30. I mean, dangerous to man ? —ln some parts of the world they allow portions of a tuberculous animal to be used as food if the disease has not gone far, and is localised, say, in the lungs or between the lungs. In other places —such as Berlin—they sterilise the meat by thorough cooking, after which it is sold to the people for what it is ; and in Copenhagen, where it is also sold under a special mark. Here Ido not think any one would care about eating it. As regards the examination by the Inspectors, they are of course very careful, and only condemn an animal when they feel perfectly certain that it is diseased ; if doubtful they call in a Government veterinary surgeon, or isolate the animal until he can see it. 31. How far is butter affected that is made from the milk of a diseased cow ?—lt is only affected to a slight extent. The fact that the germs are heavier than butter-fat renders them less liable to be thrown out with the cream by the separator. 32. Would the milk containing tuberculous germs be rendered safe if it were boiled ?—Yes; it would be safe if it were sterilised. 33. To what temperature would it have to be raised ?—lt would be safe if heated to a temperature of 165° for a certain time. There are special instruments used—pasteurisers; they do not sterilise the milk of every germ, but kill the noxious germs. 34. Then, knowing the condition of the herds, you would say that it is urgent that there should be an inspection of dairy cattle ?—Yes, it is. As an examnle as to how disease may be spread : some time ago I tested a herd with tuberculin. On testing the older animals a good many of them reacted to the test; whereas in the case of the younger animals, three or four years old, that had not been drafted out, there was, I think, only three or four per cent., which is a very small percentage in any country for a big herd. No doubt, if they had been drafted at an earlier date along with the old animals there would have been a much larger percentage infected. 35. Do you know is there a thorough inspection of dairy cattle in the Old Country?—No, there is not; they are perhaps more lax there than in any other part of the world. In Denmark there is a thorough inspection of dairy cattle. 36. With reference to sheep, how are they affected in the colony by cancer or tuberculosis?— There is practically none at all. I have never seen a case of cancer. There are tumours seen occasionally, but they are of no importance. 37. Have you seen cases of what were called cancer in the early days—the ear growing to an enormous size ?—I have not seen that. 38. Then, practically, we may say that so far as sheep are concerned we have a clean sheet ?-— Quite so. 39. And that applies especially to the sheep which are exported as being the best?— Yes. Most of the disease among sheep in the colony is traceable to internal parasites and dietetic errors —it is a question of feeding in most cases. 40. Can you inform the Committee as to what amount of inspection—that is, by skilled officers —would be needed to give effect to all parts of this Bill ?—I have not totalled up the number of Inspectors that would be necessary, but think you would require a skilled officer for each freezingworks, and also one for each large town. These would require assistants, who could ultimately be relegated as Inspectors to smaller places. 41. And how would you deal with the dairy districts?—l would deal with them in somewhat the same fashion. 42. Would one officer do for each district—say for the West Coast?— Yes, with assistants. 43. Hon. the Ghairman.~\ Pending the eradication of disease among dairy stock, would you advocate, especially in large towns, the erection of establishments where milk could be accumulated and sterilised? —Yes. They do that in Paris, though not compulsorily. The milk is sterilised in special tins under supervision of the Police Department, and it is sealed in these vessels. 44. And in that way the consumer gets milk that he knows to be harmless?— Yes, if he so desires. Most people do buy this milk, as a matter of fact. If they can do this in a large city like Paris, they can easily do it in any town in the colony. 44a. Mr. Buchanan.'] What about infection or contagion in cases of tumours ? —We know of no tumours —unless those arising in the course of a special disease such as tuberculosis—that are infectious. Some people would contend, on insufficient proof, that cancer is infectious; and a good deal of evidence has been adduced in favour of this supposition ; but, on the contrary, there is just as much evidence to show that it is not. 45. You do not attach any importance to risk from contagion or infection in the case of these tumours ? —No ; not as regards ordinary tumours. 46. In the case of tuberculosis, supposing a herd is badly infected, and is either partially or altogether destroyed after a thorough test with tuberculin, what are the risks of continued spread of infection from germs left behind by the cattle that were killed ?—So far as the soil is concerned, there is very little, because sunlight has a very strong destructive action on the germs of tuberculosis —in fact, on any germs; but in the sheds, &c, there would be a danger of the infection lying. lam inclined to the opinion that the disease is spread mostly by the grass in this country. 47. Considering the pressure upon the Government at the present time for compensation, do you think that the colony could afford to compensate owners for the number of diseased animals that would be detected as a result of an efficient system of inspection ?—I think that is hardly a question that I can be expected to answer. 48. In one sense it is. The question would practically hinge on the number of animals that would probably be detected suffering from tuberculosis ?—Quite so. In dealing with other contagious diseases, in Great Britain, where they have succeeded in stamping out rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, and pleuro-pneumonia, they could tell what animals were suffering from the disease,

I.—B

24

and they slaughtered in the case of pleuropneumonia all the animals that had been in contact with them for the previous six months. But it is different with tuberculosis—you can, of course, test the animals, yet you cannot test all of them—you can only test the cows and bulls : you cannot test the bullocks running wild, which might be as liable to spread the disease as any others. That is where the difficulty of stamping out this particular disease comes in. In Massachusetts they attempted to stamp it out by killing all infected animals, but somehow found that it did not work out, and they gave it up. Whether it was the fault of administration or not I cannot say. 49. But you can imagine the germs so abundant in various situations that constant fresh infection may take place ?—Not after a short time, except in the sheds. It has been proved experimentally that the tubercle germ dies after exposure for three hours to direct sunlight. The reason of some germs being kept alive is because the expectoration of the animal or individual, being of a slimy nature, dries on the surface, and some protection is given to the germs underneath from the direct action of the sun's rays. Once the germs are dry also, they resist destruction for a much longer period than when wet. But under ordinary circumstances I think the danger would be, after a week or so, absolutely nil. 50. Am I right in gathering your opinion to be that experience so far would give little hope of eradicating this disease, no matter what may be done ? —Yes; but the most favourable course to adopt is to destroy animals that are badly diseased, and to isolate the others where it can be done. The difficulty in the country in the way of isolation is that the value of an animal is so small that an owner will not take the trouble to isolate. 51. Have you found many cases of actinomycosis in the colony ? —Not so many lately as we used to find; they are getting fewer every year, because they are more easily recognised. 52. Is there any danger to human health in using meat so affected for food ?—No; very little, at all events. 53. You would place it in a different category altogether from tuberculosis?—l would. 54. Is there any difficulty in distinguishing between the two diseases?— Yes, frequently there is. They are both contagious. It is really for practical purposes not worth while to distinguish. 55. A Eoyal Commission was appointed in Victoria in 1885, and issued a very voluminous report. Have you had an opportunity of looking through it ?—No, I have not seen it. 56. One of the points that struck me most was the statement that in the case of a cow suffering from tuberculosis breeding a heifer calf—that that calf almost invariably took the disease after having its first calf, the conclusion being that the lowering of the vital forces through having a calf left the heifer a .prey to the germs of the disease ?—I am afraid that idea is not borne out by scientific experiment. I have seen nothing that would support it. Provided that you have the animals kept away from all contagion, they will not take it at all. 57. Supposing the case of two animals, one in high condition, the other in low condition, subjected to the same amount of infection, would not the animal in low condition be more likely to become diseased ?—lt would. From that point of view it is quite feasible. There is no doubt the animal in poor condition is less able to withstand the infection. 58. So that, with regard to this, as with regard to other diseases, it is very much a matter of condition and feeding?— Well, not absolutely; but one often finds that half-starved animals are more liable. 59. When you were at Home, did it come under your notice that disease among stock had decreased in amount where rigid inspection had been carried out for a considerable time ?—They had not had rigid inspection at all until recently —only for the last year or two. The only inspection hitherto had been as to fitness for human food; and everywhere on the Continent of Europe during the last ten years they found that tuberculosis had increased. That is why they are so anxious about it to-day. 60. In the freezing-works a considerable percentage of the sheep are found to have adhesions in the lungs, liver, &c. : has that come under your notice?-—Yes, I have seen it; but only in the chronic state —not in the acute stage. The condition is the result of a slight attack of pleurisy or other inflammation, which becomes organized, leading to adhesions. lam inclined to think that the practice of clipping young lambs which obtains here has something to do with it. I have heard no complaints about it in the South Island. 61. Why would it be the effect of early shearing ?—Because it-renders the lambs liable to catch cold. 62. The general opinion among experts here is that these adhesions are the result of lungworm and infection of the lungs in winter-time with pneumonia ?—Yes, it may be; but not as the result of lungworm itself. The lungworm never gets to the pleura —it stays in the bronchial tubes. 63. It is the practice of the freezing companies to reject these. Would you consider them in any way dangerous as food ? —Certainly not. I think that at the present time the freezing companies reject too much under the term " diseased." I remember in one of the freezing-works in the South Island seeing an animal cut up, and asked what was the matter with it. The grader showed me a small tumour about the size of a marble. I said that I would examine it, as I did not think there was much wrong with it, but that it seemed to me to be a small abscess which had formed in the groin after the operation of castration. It turned out on microscopical examination as I thought. Here was an animal cut up as useless which was quite fit for human food. 64. Mr. Mills.] Which disease do you consider more prevalent in the colony—tuberculosis or cancer ? —Tuberculosis, without a doubt. 65. Do you think it attacks either sex more than the other?—No ; I have not found it so. Of course, at present we have no opportunity of knowing exactly to what extent it attacks bullocks. We cannot examine them so readily ; and also, they do not live so long. They are killed sooner than cows ; but I think that under the same conditions we should get the same results.

25

I.—B

66. Does it seem to attack cattle more at one age than another?— No. 67. Mr. Lang.] With reference to steps taken for stamping out disease in the Old Country, has compensation been paid to every owner there ?—lt has been paid for animals destroyed on account of the rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, and pleuro-pneumonia, up to two-thirds of the value. 68. By the Government ?—Yes. Also for swine fever ; and for healthy animals destroyed they paid full compensation. 69. Mr. Lawry.] Have you been informed that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Taranaki and the upper part of the West Coast than in any other part of the colony ?—Yes. 70. How do you account for that?—-Well, you have more dairy cattle there. They live to an older age. There is also more use made of the skim-milk in Taranaki than in other parts of the colony. There are also eases which come under the notice of the Inspectors and myself, such as an old tuberculous cow with a chronic cough being brought to a saleyard, and some dairyman, not knowing much about a cow, would buy this old cow, thinking, perhaps, that her poor condition was the result of a hard winter, and take her home to his herd because she was cheap. In this manner the disease is spread. 71. Do you think the practice which obtains so largely of starving cows in winter and turning them out on to fresh grass in the spring would tend to promote the disease ? —Yes;, anything that weakens the cow renders her more susceptible. 72. If a man had a number of cows and fed them well during the winter you would say that he would have less trouble ?—Quite so. 73. Then, I understand you to say that a great deal of the tuberculosis that exists on the West Coast is due to carelessness and bad treatment ? —Yes, one may say that a good deal is due to that, though not solely. 74. I suppose you would not be surprised to hear that on a dairy farm that I have, with three hundred cows, I have not had a single case ? You would say that was in consequence of the care taken of them ?—Yes ; but you may have had cases of tuberculosis without knowing of them. 75. You have said that you had not seen a case of true malignant cancer in the colony ?—Yes; I have not known of a case. 76. Are not cases of so-called cancer on the increase in the colony ?—No, I do not think so. 77. Do you find so-called cancer more prevalent in female stock than in male stock ?—Perhaps I do. lam more called in to see female stock. A man pays more attention to a dairy cow as a rule. 78. Upon what part of the body of an animal do you find so-called cancer most frequently ?— I find what may be called cancer most frequently following the brand-mark. 79. The other day I had one in the region below the tail, which I cut out ?—That was probably caused by carelessness in not keeping the original wound in the base of the tail clean. 80. Have you frequently observed a small gathering formed under a cow's tail at the mouth of the vulva ?—Yes. 81. I have information of so-called cancer having been caused by this. You would say that in such a case it was the result of carelessness ? —Yes, probably. 82. Would you consider that, in the case of so-called cancer on the uterus, caused by reasons I have assigned, the meat would be dangerous for human food ? —lf it were a bad case and matter running from it, I would. 83. If it was not a violent case ?—Well, it depends upon circumstances. In the early stages of the tumour I would not think much of it; but it is advisable to be on the safe side. They are very rarely cured, and the best thing a man can do with a cow like that is to kill it. 84. Would you be surprised to hear that in one case in my experience of a valuable dairy cow I had a " cancer" cut out of the uterus, and that I milked the cow for four years afterwards with no sign of return? —I am not surprised to hear it at all; it would depend upon the nature of the tumour or so-called cancer. 85. You would not think the milk under such circumstances injurious to human health ?—No; especially if the tumour is cut out. 86. Hon. J. McEenzie.] I do not think that Mr. Gilruth's reply with regard to inspection was properly understood. (To witness.) Under our system at the present time you are not called in to make any inspection unless the Inspectors ask you?— Quite so. 87. The Inspectors that we have now are called Sheep Inspectors, but they are Cattle Inspectors as well, and it is their duty to say whether the animals are in good health?— Yes. 88. As a rule you find these Inspectors pretty intelligent with regard to disease ? —Yes; I have found them so. 89. And you find that in most cases where they call you in there is a necessity for your being called? —Yes; I find that they deal with ordinary cases very intelligently indeed. They only seek my services when they are in doubt. They report to the Stock Department, and then Mr. Eitchie calls upon me to examine the cattle. 90. From your knowledge of the colony you think it would assist in the stamping out of disease if the department had power to pay compensation up to a certain amount for all cattle destroyed ?— Yes, no doubt. 90a. The fact of the Inspectors knowing that at present the owner will not get paid for any cattle that they may condemn makes them very much more cautious ?—Yes, naturally. 91. So that, if they were left a free hand, and knowing that there would be no loss to the owner, they would get a larger proportion of diseased cattle disposed of ? —Yes; the owners would report to them the existence of disease, and everything would go much smoother. At the present time, when an owner thinks there is anything wrong, he would be more likely to send the animal to the saleyard. 4—l. 8.

I.- -8

26

92. Do you think it is absolutely necessary that every Inspector should be a veterinary surgeon ? —No, I think not. ■93. You think that if there are a sufficient number of veterinary surgeons to attend to the wants of the local Inspectors, that would meet the case ?—Yes ; the local Inspectors have so much to do otherwise, in acquiring a knowledge of the country and the habits of the people, that I do not think you can expect thsm to be qualified men. I have found in the South that people seem not to care about telling the Inspector about their cattle, because the Stock Inspector is also Eabbit Inspector, and they do not want him to see their rabbits. They say to me many a time, " Come; but I don't want the Inspector." 94. Hon. Mr. Montgomery .] You have spoken of isolating the animals ?—Once they are tested, if you isolate those that are diseased quite away from the healthy ones, you could gradually replace them. You would keep them isolated until they have their calves ; and after being tested the healthy calves could be put with the healthy stock, while those that are very bad could be gradually eliminated. An animal may react to the test, and on killing it there might be found a little lump, only the size of a marble. This might cause as much reaction as if the disease was far advanced. 95. If an animal be tested and be found to have the disease, should it be killed ?—-Under the Act it should be. 96. How, then, do you determine when an animal should be isolated ? If you apply the test and the animal is found to be tuberculous you have to kill it; there can therefore be no isolation under the Act ?—At present we do not kill them straight out. Suppose you were the owner of a herd and wanted them tested; if you were to know that the Inspector would kill everything that reacted, you would not be anxious for the application of the test, consequently we could never use the test at all with satisfaction. But we will not test at present unless the owner states that he is willing to isolate when it is found necessary. 97. But, under the Act, if, when tested, they are found to be tuberculous, they must be killed ? —Yes. 98. Mr. Wason.] The whole of the evidence which you gave in reply to Mr. Ormond's questions seems to be beside the Act we are discussing altogether. Are you of opinion that the dairy stock in the colony should be subject to much more rigid inspection than at present?— Yes; I think there is an urgent necessity for the inspection of dairy stock. 99. With reference to the question that fell from the Minister of Lands : clause 27 of the Bill reads, " Provided that no person (other than a duly qualified veterinary surgeon) shall be appointed as an Inspector unless he has passed the prescribed examination before the Government Veterinarian," &c. Do I understand you to say, in reply to Mr. McKenzie, that you do not think that would be necessary? —No. For inspection of meat under the Bill I think it would decidedly be necessary to have an examination. Even many of the older veterinary surgeons, who have not given any attention to meat inspection, would not do for this work. 100. You stated the other day that there were only five or six in the colony ?—Yes; they would have to be imported. 101. For instance, there is a man in Christchureh who has been there inspecting for nine years for the Selwyn County Council, and for the Christchureh Municipal Council for the last four years. He must have had a great deal of experience with reference to tuberculosis, and also with reference to actinomycosis. Would not a person of that sort do as an Inspector under the Act?— Well, if he could pass his examination, he would ;if he could not, Ido not think he would do. Ido not mean that it would necessarily be a written examination. It might be vivdvoce. 102. Would there then be any objection in altering the wording of the clause in reference to " prescribed examination " to such as " satisfied the Government Veterinarian " ?—Yes. You see, as I told this Christchureh Inspector myself, that in Christchureh they would require an assistant besides the Chief Inspector ; and he would be a most useful man for that; but I certainly would not put him on to examine the whole of the meat killed in Christchureh on his own responsibility. 103. Then it is not intended that assistant Inspectors should pass the prescribed examination? —No, not necessarily a written examination. 104. They would merely have to satisfy you as to their knowledge. Have you any objection to putting words in the Bill to meet this ?—There is no objection, so far as I know. 105. In the Pharmacy Bill, where the lives of human beings are concerned, it is provided that a man is qualified if he has carried on business, I think, for two months on his own account or six months if in employment ?—Yes; that is quite a different question from this, because there is no inspection at present. There is no place at present where a man can get a knowledge as Inspector in the colony, and the inspection is purely perfunctory. You have never heard of an instance of an Inspector walking into a slaughterhouse and condemning an animal that he saw hanging up there. An Inspector would also require a certain knowledge of hygiene, in order to be able to inspect such matters as water-supply and drainage. For instance, in Invercargill they have an Inspector at £50 a year, and the state of things there at the slaughter-shed is simply disgusting. The wells are merely little holes about the slaughter-yard, and are liable to contamination of every kind ; the water from these being used to wipe the meat with. 106. You would then require an Inspector to pass an examination, and the deputy Inspectors to satisfy the department as to their knowledge?— Yes ; the deputy Inspectors could be trained—it would be sufficient, indeed, if he satisfied his own Inspector. Of course, if a deputy Inspector applied for an inspectorship he would then have to pass the examination. Mr. Ritchie examined. 107. Hon. J. D. Ormond.] You have heard that I asked Mr. Gilruth if he could supply information as to the number of cattle that have been killed on account of tuberculosis—you will have the record ? —Yes; I have the record before me. For the last two years there were about 1,600.

27

I.—B

108. How many of those were paid for ? —I cannot tell that exactly. I should think there may have been from twenty to forty, not more than that. We have only paid compensation in very hard cases, or where there had been a mistake made in the diagnosis. 109. On the subject of compensation have you made any estimate that would be a guide to the Legislature in dealing with the Bill before us—as to the total amount that is likely to be required under the Bill ?—I have made some calculations, but have not yet completed them. I shall have them when the Stock Bill is before the Committee. The number of cattle destroyed in many districts has been extremely small. I may say that I bear out what Mr. Gilruth has said as to the dairy districts; and would emphasize the importance of bringing in some legislation requiring milk to be pasteurised. I think it is absolutely necessary that this should be done in some form, and would prefer to have the whole-milk pasteurised. It should, however, be pasteurised either in wholemilk form, skim-milk form, or whey. 110. Do you mean for human consumption ? —Yes, and also for factory purposes. Many of the factories are doing it now. 111. This is in order to kill all germs ?—Yes, and the milk also keeps much longer. 112. Do you think it would cause great expense to the dairies?— Not very much: they do it now in some factories ; they also started in Napier, but gave it up for some reason. If the milk were pasteurised in whole-milk form, it would be safer for human consumption as well as for feeding to calves. 113. As to Inspectors, I understand from the evidence given that you depend mainly upon the Sheep Inspectors for inspection ?—Yes, for both cattle and sheep. 114. Do you think they are really competent as regards cattle ?—I think they are quite competent ; and according to their instructions, if they are in doubt, they advise me of it and isolate the beast, and one of the veterinary surgeons is told off to make an inspection as soon as possible afterwards. I have at the present moment one or two applications for a veterinary surgeon to make such an inspection. The Inspectors have particular instructions not to destroy any animal unless they are absolutely certain that there are unmistakeable signs of disease. I think Mr. Gilruth bears this out; he has stated that in every case that he was called in to examine he found that the Inspectors were correct. I may say that last year we called the bulk of the South Island Inspectors together, and got a number of diseased cattle, which were tested with tuberculin, and afterwards a post-mortem examination was made by the veterinary surgeons before the Inspectors. 115. Take, for instance, your West Coast Inspector; has he any special knowledge of cattle?— There are three Inspectors on the West Coast. The one in the dairy district has no special knowledge ; he is a very careful young fellow, and has taken a great interest in the work. The veterinary surgeons have been in that district more, I think, than in any other; he always accompanies the veterinary surgeon. I have not heard any complaint of anything that he has done. The farmers there, indeed, seem to want more inspection. At the last annual meeting of the National Dairy Association several of the delegates stated that they wanted more inspection in the Taranaki district. 116. Mr. Lang.] Of the 1,600 cattle destroyed for tuberculosis, were these evenly proportioned all over the colony, or were there more in any one district ?—The dairy districts are the worst. I agree with Mr. Gilruth that there is a good deal attributable to want of attention to the cattle; where they were not treated as they ought to be, they get into low condition, and are more apt to contract disease. Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given : printing (1,625 copies), £16 18s.

By Authority : Johs Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—lB9B. Price, 9d.~}