CARDBOARD IN BOOTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13909, 7 December 1910, Page 6

CARDBOARD IN BOOTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF-"THE PKESS."

Sir, —The letter in your issue of Wednesday last, signed by Messrs Frostirk and "Williams, would have probably been couched in other terms and been freer from ungenerous inuendo and silly personalities if those gentlemen had restrained themselves until they knew exactly what transpired in the discussion on the Factories Rill.

May I enlighten them, if their minds are not closed to facts? "When the Factories Act Amendment Bill was before the House, the Minister proposed to drop clause 4, which provided for the compulsory branding of New Zealand manufactured leather and textile goods. 1 expressed regret that clause 4 should be dropped, and said in the course of my remarks: —"I happen to know that a few weeks ayo the Minister of Labour received from certain employees in the boot industry tangible evidence that the working class is being imposed upon in the most j .scandalous manner with regard to boots that are offered for sale 'in this City of "Wellington and elsewhere. He has in his possession, I know, and I have a duplicate set myself—samples of tiie materials that are being built into some of the boots of the working class in this country. The facts that we both have show that a clause such as clause 4 is urgently required. Men who earn their money the most hardly are being imposed upon with goods that are fraudulent. There is nothing good about them but the outside appearance. Portions of some boots are cardboard. The insole of the women's boots is practically cardboard, and the boot from start to finish is largely' an 'imposition. These boots are being sold in competition with boots of a higher quality, and the only thing to commend them is the low price which, of course, rascals such as the men who are now manufacturing them, are able to offer." Some member interjected here: —"Are they made locally?" 1 replied and continued—

"'They aro made locally. I have here in my drawer s*_>eeimens of the articles I have referred to, and the -Minister will confirm what 1 state when I say the facts in his possession go to Snow that the buyers of the poorer class of hoots are being deliberately robbed, and that an injustice is being practised on the general public by certain boot manufacturers. We should provide that the manufacturers of these goods should supply the material they purport to provide, and if they do not we should make them liable to heavy penalties. In such matters wo ought to protect the wages of the workers."

I have nothing to withdraw from the above. Nothing to apologise for. Messrs Frostick and Williams rush ' in with their censure and personalities. Perhaps they prefer to base their criticism upon the few words conveyed in the Press Association wire published in Monday's papers. It affords better material for the abuse they seem to think public men deserve who call attention to matters requiring to be remedied. If Messrs Frostick and Williams had had to publicly express their opinions as frequently as I have had to do for the past twenty years, their impetuosity, judging by their recent letter, would have kept them busy defending libel actions. They say, 1 "urged compulsory branding of all boots and shoes in order that the public may be warned against buying boots made in New Zealand." Tho statement credited to mc by your correspondents was nover made by mc. There is much more almost as incorrect in Messrs Frostick and Williams' letter; but it can wait.—Yours, etc. T. E. TAYLOrt.

Wellington, December Ist