WHAT PROTECTION DOES IN VICTORIA.

Evening Star, Issue 7248, 27 June 1887, Page 4

WHAT PROTECTION DOES IN VICTORIA.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Since the agitation I'rotection v. Freetiade began in Dunedin you have frequently published letters and reports of Protection League racetin s, praising Victoria as a paradise for the working class in contiadistinction to Freetrade New South Wale-". At a meeting of the Protection League, held at the Athenrenm on February 11, a member (Mr Matthews), quoting from notes made during a then recent visit to Victoria, mad l tin following statements :—" A coat of Kaiapoi tweed, which would cost 4Cs in Dunedin, could be made of the same stuff in Melbourne for 353." Any business person knows that both the Dunedin and Melbourne tradesmen get their goods at the same price at the factory, and that the Melbourno tradesman pays a heavy duty, so that if the above be true who suffers ?

With your permission I shall explain from evidence which cannot bo gainsaid. I have before me the report of the Trades and Labor Congress held in Duncdin in January, 18S5. At page 25 Si* Robert Stout, in his address to the Congress re local industries, used the following words-.—"When. I was in Melbourne lately I saw some factories there whose existence was kept up by demanding excessive hours of labor, even of women and children > and I was told by some of the manufacturers that unless they could obtain labor at that cheap rate and with those long hours their factories would have to shut up." I also have before mo the official report of the debates of the Trade Union Congress held in the Trades' Hall Melbourne, April, 1884. At page 78 Mr Duncan M'lvor (Tailors' Society) says; "His trade worked such long hours as ten, twelve, and even sixteen hours a-day." At page 95 Mr Charles Knight (Operative Bootmakers' Union) nays: "In the boot and tailoring trades the people worked from & a.m. to half-past 5 p.m., when they were supposed to knock off. Both eex.ee, however, were to be h&cn with parcels or bags containing articles to fiaish. Jf persons engaged in Mich trades could not earn sufficient in ordinary working hours without taking work tome, then thei? lyases should be increased. Somebody else must begetting too much profit." Again, at page 100, Mrs E. J. Crepswell (TMloregses' Union, Melbourne) say a: " When io a. state of starvation some time ago, the trades of Melbourne came to the rescue and apent LI,OOO in as-iainy? them to get through with the strike. They L-jd protected helpless females, who were recently informed by one of the factory managers that they 'had no rights.' All the taikoresses asked for was s, tu;i' remuneration : but the manufacturers took care that they had the kernel, leavug the poor workwomen nothing but the shell. —(Cries of 'Sharae.'") at page JOl, Mrs J. Graham (Tailoresses' Union) said that she had workeJ for macy years in the factories of Melbourne, and had hid three children to support. She had never once seen #n inspec'or in one of the workrooms; had seen the great evil of the "sweating" system. "Often Jha«l sheworkel from eight in the morning until two and three o'clock the next morning, in order to get a living for hersc'f and family; and now the tailoresses were in no better condition." I think I need not add one word to point out Chfl reason why of Mr Matthews'a assertions, for ithey w«3 ,only too patent; for in the words of poor Mrs Ccesswell—too surely —the manufacturers get the jke,rnel and the artisan the husk.— lam, etc., Paul Puy. Dunediu, June 28. P.S.—The above statements were matl-i at a meeting of practical tradesmen, peaking from hard experience, and not v'sionary theorists.— F.P.

lam, etc., Dunediu, June 28.