The Wet Sheep Question. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2549, 21 January 1903, Page 9

The Wet Sheep Question. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — The opposition of shearers to shear wet sheep and the support given to them by the v riter in their opposition is well known to the many readers of your valuable journal. Hithertc we have always contended that shearers should act in a body when the question of wet sheep arose, and I have unfalteringly supported tnis contention from the public platform, the press, and m my capacity of shearer in all sheds where I have been engaged in I\ew Zealand and Australia during the last 25 years. Notwithstanding this long experience, I now, after giving the question calm and careful cons.deration, and drawing before my mind all the wet sheep disputes, the actions of the men in connection therewith, and the final Tosults of such disputes, have come to the conclusion that for men to act in a body is not a solution of the difficulty. My reason for suppoiting this method m the past was because some bosses were prone to discharge a man who might appeal to be spokesman or leadei in the matter. In fact, m some cases it was as good as tho sack to hint that sheep were tor wet to shear. Then, again, shearing wet sh?ep has m my healing been declared by some shearers to bo so detrimental and injurious to their health that they would not under any circumstances shear wet sheep. Only this season I had a shearer declare that he would not shear wet sheep were he ordered to do bo by his Maker. Now, in extreme cases like these, it would bo hardly right for a team of sheaiers to stand by and see a shearer discharged because he refused to do that which he knew to be dangerous to his health, and perhaps his life , hence our reasons for acting in v body whenever the question arose. However, personally I have completely changed my attitude on this question, not before, as stated above, I have given it calm and careful consideration.

My reasons for changing my views and attitude on this question are as follows In tho first place, .managers are not now, as they used to be, likely to discharge a shearer should ho decline to shear wet sheep. As a matter of fact, some employers state at the commencement of shearing that any shearer is at liberty to go to the hut if he considers the sheep too wet to 6hear, and in those sheds working under this rule there has never yet been any dispute between the boss and men; noi, indeed, has thero ever been any dispute or ill-feeling amongst the men themselves over the question. I may say right here that the wet sheep question is, and has been, a prolific source of creating ill-feeling, dissatisfaction, distiust, and even hatred amongst sheareis who, when discussing othei difficult questions, are trustful of each othci, friendly, and inclined to settle questions as between themselves and the employer peaceably, and "without resorting to personalities and illfeeling. Hence it will be admitted that tho question should be settled equitably, with as little delay as possible. As before stated, m future I intend to settle any question arising over wet sheep to suit myself, with no reference to any other person m persona to the question. This decision on my part has beer arrived at after a careful study of the question from both sides for over 20 years. Kever once during that time have I seen employer and men agree on the question; it has been a case of force, either by one party oi the other, with the consequent ill-feeling that follows in the wake of coercion. Apart from the men and employer during the period mentioned, I havo attended many meetings of shearers for the $yS2fm $ (foa&Bfi «»> b 9d¥, vrh.fih.6r. Bh»e£

put into the shed to shear were dry onough' to shear, and nevei jet lias any ci-owd of men I ever worked with been decided on tho question, and the results of the men's deliberations have in every case been followed by personalities, recriminations, and in many instances fights, resulting in- on* case in the disabling of twi men, one seriously. However, to draw this long letter to a close, let us glance at acase that happened this season. The manager of a station not 300 miles iron- Dunedin asked I the union representative of ihe shed to ask the men would they cut .out a flock of about 700 ewes to oblige him. ihe representative accordingly called the men togethet in order to take a vote on the question. Previous tc taking a vote a shearer moved that the meeting pledge itself to abfd by the decision of the majority. Some" >l the men objected that it was not necessary tc put this motion, for the. reason that the majority in all suchjstses ruled; .othcro objected, saying that no najority would incb/ce them to shear wet sheep. '* The fepresentativo explained that were the meeting to pledge itself to stand by the majority it did not follow that any man would be expected tc shear tho sheSp il he had personal objections to do so. JVfter further discussion of a desultory nature, the writer seconded the motion, saying that he reserved the right to retuse to continue shearing should he find the sheep too.wet for him. The representative again urged the meeting to be unanimous on the question. On the aiotion being put, seven dissented. -On the Jettilt being declared, I left the meeting, followed by another shearer, as I considered that a meeting not prepared to stand or fall with the.majority . could attain no definite or useful purpose by going on with the other business. -With the exception of the twe who left the meeting, the rest stayed, and finally decided not to shear tho sheep. On the representative coming out from the meeting, md before I was aware of the result, -I asked him to inform the manager" that I took no part in the meeting. The ra-. presentativt declined to take my message ; consequently I went to the manager and asked him if he was aware that the meeting was taking place. He said "Yes," and he hoped they would shear them, as they were dry. I told him I did not know what the "3ecision would be, but that on all questions an this matter, as between hin? as employei and me as employee, that might arise he would oblige by dealing with myself ; a future. He replied, "All right, ' and I left him. Shortly afterwards the representative made known tc the boss the- men's decision not to shear. The boss sent Mm back to the men to tell <hen> the sheep were dry, and that a start would be made in the morning. As usual, tho start was made, and all the men, excepting two, continued to shear throughout the day. Xhe twe referred to, be ft said to their credit, a-cted on their convictions, and they were not subjected to any discipline from the boss. This is, of course, as it should be; but v?ha< was the feeling engendered amongst us? Anything but pleasant, I can assure you. My action in going to the boss was condemned, and I was called a. wet sheep shearer and all sorts of ugly names, and the men's own action in first lefusing through their representative to shear, and tlien shearing, cannot, I fear, commend itself to any of us. In conclusion, in the matter of wet sheep for the future, I shall settle the question for myself by going to tho hut when I consider sheep too wet to shear, no matter whal the consequences may be. Finally, I would ask all managers who may do me the hofloui of reading this letter to consider tho great injury they are doing a crowd of men by asking them to shear sheep that are v.-ct. — I am, etc., S. BOREHAM. "Waimate, January 13.

The discovery has been made that the kahuwai in Hawke's Bay waters are feeding on the young soles. A member of the Tuhoe tribe, who inhabit the mountainous regions of the TJrewera. Country, writes to the Rotorua paper a3 follows: — " 0, friend, can you inform us the reason why work is not given to the Maori people of Maungapohatu, that is, the members of the Tuhoe tribe? Wo have neither .clothes nor food, nor money to procure these necessaries, and it is yet three months before our harvest is ready, and- we know not how we and tho little ones are | to exist in tlie meantime."

t