View report page

109
A letter was subsequently received from the Secretary expressing his
Board's regret that no notice was given that the pigs in question were about
to be dispatched to our market, and giving an assurance that in future, when
sending any pigs to market under similar circumstances, we shall be at once
notified. He further stated that the Board would require an explanation
from the Veterinary Inspector as to how he sanctioned the removal of pigs to
the City that were subsequently found unfit for food.
In these circumstances it was not considered necessary to take further action.
SUGGESTED ALTERATION OF THE LAW RELATING TO
UNSOUND MEAT SEIZURES.
Understanding that the President of the Local Government Board proposed
to introduce a Public Health (Amendment) Act, the National Federation of
Meat Traders suggested for the consideration of Mr. Long some material
modification of the existing law relating to seizures of unsound meat. The
Corporation of Glasgow took strong exception to these suggestions, as reported
in the "Meat Trades Journal," and in a circular letter asked the Corporation
for an expression of opinion thereon.
The matter was referred to the City Solicitor and your Medical Officer of
Health by the Sanitary Committee, and we had no hesitation in reporting that
we entirely agreed with the view taken by the Glasgow Corporation.
The proposed amendments were intended to apply to the Public Health
Act of 1875, but in the event of their being accepted for that Act, they would
also be made to apply to the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and thus
affect the City.
The following are the suggestions referred to, with our objections to the
same, which were in due course remitted to the Glasgow authorities:—
Suggestion No. 1.—"It is proposed to expunge the words: 'The
"'proof that same was not exposed or deposited for any such purpose,
"'or was intended for the food of man, resting with the party charged."
The words in both Acts—1875 and 1891—are identical, and it must be
obvious that such an amendment would almost entirely do away with the
value of the Section. To the honest trader there can be but little, if any,
difficulty in proving that the meat in any particular case is not intended for
the food of man; whereas, if the onus were thrown upon the Authority, it
might be an extremely difficult matter, especially in cases were there was
deliberate intent. It must be assumed that when meat ordinarily used for