'PHOSSY JAW.'

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 172, 23 July 1898, Page 4 (Supplement)

'PHOSSY JAW.'

There has been a. howl of righteous indignation throughout the country against Bryant and May since the exposure at the end of last week of their breach of regulations under the Factory Act. The 'Star,' which has been conducting; the anti-lucifer campaign for years past, shrieks that 'Every tjin e \onc of Bryant and May's matches is struck the stink.of their despicable falsehoods will offend the nostrils,' and other papers break out in an equally hysterical strain. The Company has. a capital of £40,----000 and pays a dividend oi from 17 to 20 per cent. Apparently its factories are well conducted and every caution is taken to minimise the ris!iS attendant upon the use of the inflammable yellow phosphorus. But Bryant and May have always kept the occurrence of phosphorus necrosis, or 'phossy jaw,' very dark, so dark in fact that even experts spoke of 'phossy jaw,' which 'Chamber's Encyclopedia' says 'used to be common among- the makers of lucifer matches,' as a thing of the past. Belying on the bona fides of the firm special regulations were drawn up in 1593 by the Home Office under the Factories Acts of 1891 and 1595 requiring notice of all cases of 'phossy jaw' to be reported to the Inspector of Factories and the certifying surgeon. Ever since 1592 the 'Star' has made accusation;? of the occurrence of the grim disease in Bryant and May's factories and the firm has indignantly denied it. Even the Government inspectors who had the works under inspection could discover no trace of poisoning from the inhalation of the phosphorus fumes. Dr. Carman, the works' doctor, who attended the factory hands, kept his own counsel, and when workmen did die found some other cause of death than phosphorus poisoning. At last an inquest took place on the body of one Cornelius Lean. Even then the certificate of death signed by Dr. Garman failed to attribute his death to 'phossy jaw.' When the factory inspector' enquired into the matter, for outside medical evidence proved that death was due to phosphorus necrosis, Bryant and May denied' the whole thing and said that nothing of the sort had" happened. But the 'Star' published the names of other victims and at last Bryant and May made a clean breast and supplied Inspector Vnughan with a long list of persons who were suffering from phosphorus poisoning contracted in their works. Summonses were issued, but, it was found that although since 1893 there had been six deaths from 'phossy jaw' and eleven other cases of phosphorus poisoning, all unrevealed to the authorities, although the sufferers had been under the charge of the works? doctor, who reported upon them to the firm every week, the majority of cases could not be proceeded on, as the prosecution • was limited by the Summary Jurisdiction Act to offences within the'preceding six months. Mr Bartholomew, the managing director, had nothing to say except that the_ firm were very sorry a fine of £25 was imposed. •,-».-, The reason for Bryant and Mays suppression of the cases of necrosis that have occurred from time to time in their factory seems to have been that if these cases had been reported the Department would have ordered a strict inquiry into the whole matter and increased the stringency of the special rules. The factory inspectors, the public watch-dogs, were, however, bamboozled, and the Department in consequence supposed that the special rules had been working effectually and the ravages of the disease had been stopped. According to the inspector's ' account, Bryant and May afford the victims of 'phossy jaw* prompt medical attendance and support and subsidise them during their illness. The firm claim to have done all that is possible to prevent phosphorus necrosis and state that their doctor has so skilfully

I treated the 47 cases that have occurred I during the last 20 years that SI per ! cent, of those attacked have been completely cured, and many of those cured are still in the firm's employ enjoying the 'best of health.' The statement on I their special safety-match thatl 'these matches are not poisonous and are harmless to those employed in their manufacture' is true and refers to the special safety-matches which are entirely free from yellow phosphorous, which Bryant and May have invited their consumers to use and which are cheaper than the yellow phosphorus matches. B"ut the consumer still has a preference for the 'strike.-anywhere' match, which it appears cannot be made without yellow phosphorus. The last statement is the crux of the whole case. The public will have the 'strike anywhere" matches and as no one can .plead ignorance of the dangers to which the makers of lucifers are exposed the public must share with the manufacturers the blame for human suffering-. If the country is really as much in earnest as the ferocious howls ot the papers seem- to imply Parliament should prohibit the use of yellow phosphorus altogether,' as is alleged to be the case on the Continent, However, the offer of the Belgian Government of'a premium of 50,000 francs to the inventor of a. paste for matches free from white phosphorus and to ignite on any surface seems to bear out Bryant and May's contention that 'strike anywhere' matches cannot be made without' yellow phosphorus. Meantime I am inclined to believe that the man in the street will denouneeßryan/fcanclMayand continue to buy lucifers that will strike on the back of his pants—because he is built that way.