CARDBOARD IN BOOTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13907, 5 December 1910, Page 9

CARDBOARD IN BOOTS.

TO THE EDITOK OP "THU TRESS." Sr ,_i n your" issue' of Wednesday • appears the cony of a letter winch h=d S puolished by the Christchurch morning paper, and s. S n«l by.HrJ. \ Frostick, ex-pres.dent of tne Ne* | Zealand Boot Manufacturers' redera- , tion, and Mr Wm. ttiHiame, president | ot the Boot Operatives' Federation. Since Mr T. K. Taylor was returned to Parliament last election he has suffered many attacks whkh.luive been the outcome- of political prejudice, but none havo been so glaring and none co invidious «» tho letter above referred to. M> Taylors remarks are paragraphed ne follows :~"Mr Taylor Livs that the working man has bren ini'KJ.K'd ii'ion in a s-ancinlou; manner, because the boots which are made in thss country are absolutely fraudulent the instils made of card' board/ What Mr Tnylor did «ay. is as 'follow*:—"He had a duplicate set oi materials now bf>in« built into boots ■of the working class. 'I he goads were absolutely fraudulent. Portions of the boots were pure cardboard.' . Further on be said that these boots were sold ,in competition with boots of quality?' naturally inferring that the 'high'quality -, aridc was alto made jn New Zoilmid. It will easily bo observed how unjust m the attack on slr Taylor. It is <itiitc unwarranted, and can only 'od for the purpose of turning agstinst him the bootmakers ■who happen to livo in his electorate. Kver.rboJy who knows Mr Taylor knows there is no rnorr- patriotic public man in this Dominion, and to misinterpret his public utterances for political motives is something I feel sure the members of tho Boot Operative*' Federation will demand an explanation of. They are entitled to know the reasons which prompted their president to allow his name to be attached to the letter in question. Mr Frostick has endeavoured to Ret a splendid advertisement gratis for the efficiency of the Boot Manufacturers' Federation's produce, but Mr Tayior was speaking of "boots" (not "tno boots , '), made in New Zealand. This is just where tho inference referred to is a misrepresentation of what Mr Taylor meant. * Whether the boots referred to . bj him are made in factories under the •'control" of tho Boot Manufacturers' Federation is not the point upon which controversy should • proceed. That they are made is a fact well known to bootmakers generally/ and they are made in , factories under the "control" of, and subject to, the laws of this Dominion. If Mr Frostick and Mr Willinnis will dispute that boots aro made in New Zealand which contain cardboard and othel* inferior substitutes for leather, J atn procured to defend Mr Taylor and piove his contention right im> to the hilt. Taking the percentage referred to by Mr Froatick —under five —and putting it at four, and. estimating the manufactured boots and shoos at a million pairs per ntinum, then if 4 per cent of this quantity contains material other than leather —shoddy—the public is being deceived to the extent of 40,000 pairs per annum. That quantity alone eurcly justifies Mr Tnylor in making the statement hi\ did. The report of Mr Taylor's remarks was followed by tho remarks of Mr Arnold M.P. for Dunedin Central, which were as fol- • lows:— "He said ho knew that a very large number of boots were manufactured (not in Dtlnedin) of cardboard and other shoddy material . . .." Surely this is only corroborative of the Assertions made by Mr Taylor—by one possessed of practical knowledge, practical experience," and practical ability—and yet Mr Froetick and Mr Williams make irofc the elightttt reference to him nor yrh&t he eaid. , -; Knowing Mr Williams as I do, I can- ! , not imagine haw he has been inveigled /., mo attaching hi& signature trt a letter, • trtteli ie nothing bnt an insidious at- . tttßpfc to defame the fair name of Labour's ablest advocate in the Parlia- , mart of this Dominion.—Yohra, etc., , .. J DAVID K. PRITCHARd! -•.December 3rd, 1910.