SPOILT BRICKS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 79, 16 March 1912, Page 6

SPOILT BRICKS.

MR. M’GOWEN’S STATEMENT

INDICATIONS OF A CONSPIRACY.”

THE MEN DEMAND INQUIRY

Sydney, March 7.

In the Legislative Assembly last night Mr. Wade asked the Premier if he would take steps to sift to the bottom the charge made by the Minister for Works that Mr. Henley had tried to buy certain workmen at the State brickworks to let the fires go out.

Mr. McGowen replied: “A reference to Hansard fails to show any record of any such charge against the member for Burwood. I find, however, that in a statement to the press on the Ist instant my colleague said, ‘he believed there had been foal play at the brickworks on more than one occasion, when attempts were made to spoil the kilns, but he could pro''’ nothing.’ My colleague, however, , informs me that, by an interjection made in the House (which evidently was not heard by the Hansard reporters), he did suggest that Mr. Henley’s friends had something to do with the matter. There are undoubted indications of a conspiracy to prevent the satisfactory working of the establishment, evidently made with [ a view to adversely influence the Public Works Committee during its present investigations, but there is nothing to connect the hon. member therewith. The interjection made by my colleague was. I understand, withdrawn.”

BRICKMAKERS’ REPLY.

The charge made by Mr. Griffith, and now endorsed by Mr. McGowen, that some workmen at the State brickworks have conspired to spoil bricks in the making was last night denied by four of the setters. The charge of foul play in the burning of the bricks can only refer to the setters, whose duty is to burn them. Mr. Griffith alleged at the outset that the spoilt bricks were the result of the flue being deliberately blocked by a brick being placed edgeways on it. The four setters, seen last night in reference to the Premier’s en dorsement of the statement by the Minister for Works that there has been foul play on the part of the workmen, ridiculed the suggestion, and claimed to speak on behalf of two setters lately employed at the works. One of the setters remarked: “We went there to do the best we could for the venture, and thought we hail billets for life. We were going to buy land in the vicinity, and establish homes. We have all left of our own accord in disgust at the way things have been going on there.” Mr. D. Cheeseman replied to what ''had been stated in the House on Tuesday night as to his alleged dismissal from the State brickworks.

“They don’t know what they are talking about,” he said. “I never was dismissed. The facts are these: On Tuesday, February 13, I saw the office boy early that morning, and told him that I was leaving, as I was ‘full up’ of the way things were being conducted. I asked the boy to give my pay docket to a Mr. Roche, so that he could draw my money for me, but the boy said he could not do that, and .hat he would have to give me a paper to sign giving Roche authority to draw my money. Mr. Hutton did not turn up until 3 in the afternoon, and at 4.30 p.m. I said to the office boy: ‘ Have you got that paper for me to sign ! ’ He said : 'No ; Mr. Hutton is here now, and he will give vou a cheque.’ Early that morning I had rung up the management of a private brickworks, and asked if they were suited with setters, and they replied : ‘No ; come up to-

morrow and fetch a mate with you.’ I went there, and started work. I defy Messrs. Griffiths, Hutton, and Co., or anyone else, to say that I got the ’ sack.’ Let them have an enquiry about the conduct of the brickworks.

” On Monday night, in the House, Mr. Griffiths admitted that I left of my own accord, and yet he turns round and contradicts himself the very next night. However, what 1 have told you are the true facts. Now, with respect to the 20 men who are said to have got the ‘ sack,’ it seems that the setters are getting all the blame for bad work, but as one of those setters I defy the Government to prove that a setter was ’ sacked.’ The names of other setters who worked there ai;e Daniels, Harrison, Spooner, Verronkee, Payne, and Kimber, and I have the authority of the whole of these men to say that not cne of then, got tlse ‘ sack.’ They arc as good a body of men as ever worked in a brickyard or kiln, but they all left in disgust.

“I notice that Mr. Thrower, in the House, asked if ‘ the man Cheese' man ’ had not been coaxed away to enter the employment of Henley and Co. My answer is I never saw Mr. Her.k-y in my life, or anybody connected with him. I should not know him if I met him. I am working at the Flemington brickworks, with which, as far as I know, Henley has nothing to do, so that Mr. Thrower does not know what he is talking ■ about.”