15

-L • XO

the first and second year a man employs a boy he derives no benefit from him. I think the first two years the benefit is on the boy's side as much as the master's. A man will not take apprentices to learn a trade without deriving some benefit from them. When a man takes an apprentice he educates him so that in after life he may be able to earn his living wherever he goes ; and if there is no advantage to the master he will certainly not educate the boy. 20. Do you not think that is an argument rather in favour of apprenticing than otherwise, say, for six years, so that the employer would get a profit, if not in the first two, then in the latter four years ? You think the rate of pay is too high altogether ? —Yes, for the first two years. While I think a lad for the first two years, while learning a trade, is not of much value to his employer, yet I think he ought, to receive a fair wage. For instance, the first year under the Bill is put down at 14 per cent. We are in the habit of paying 12-J- per cent, to our boys. The second year is put down as 20 per cent., and we pay 19 per cent., but, of course, we get the benefit of the last three years. We apprentice for only five years, and derive a benefit in the last three. We begin our apprentices at 6s. a week, and give a rise of 3s. annually. 21. Up to the end of the five years?— No. At the fifth year we give ss. a week of a rise instead of 3s. 22. What do you suggest as to the mode of payment; or do you think payment ought not to be interfered with by the Bill?—I do not think the Bill ought to interfere with payment. No doubt a scale ought to be fixed, but it ought to be more in the master's favour than this Bill provides for, because the master has qualified the lad in teaching him his trade, and if he does not get some equivalent for teaching him he will not do so. 23. Would you reduce the number of boys in proportion to the journeymen?—l think there ought to be a limit in the Bill. In Wellington at the present time we have twelve apprentices in our place, in three different departments; two of these are in the last year of their time. And we employ seventeen men in. the same department; and I have taken out their average wage, which is 50s. a week. Bs. and 9s. a day is the standard wage in the cabinet trade, or a little lower than for carpenters; but there is no loss of time such as carpenters are subject to, consequently the advantage—if'you take the year through—is in favour of the cabinetmaker. 24. Do you not think the difficulty which exists of finding employment is caused by men drifting into employments where they are not wanted, after they have ceased to be boys ? —lt seems to me there is a difficulty in finding employment for all the young men growing up in the colonies. You cannot make them all farmers, and I see that there is a difficulty in dealing with them ; but I think it is beyond Legislative control. 25. I quite admit that, but we want to check it as far as possible?—l think there should be some limit. In reference to the employment of labour, I may say that I think there is too much competition in trade in the colony, and there seems to be more men engaged in business than there should be, and the consequence is excessive competition, with the result that many have to go to the wall if they are not in a position to place their goods on the market as cheaply as others. It is rather a difficult question to solve. 26. Do you not think that legislation, though it might not stop the evil, might in some way prevent the abuses going on, and that it would be to the benefit of legitimate traders who wish to act honestly and fairly, if the low "cutting" shops could be restricted?—l do not think it would be a disadvantage to the trade if you limited the number of apprentices, if you did not make the number too low. 27. You would have it within reason ?—Yes. 28. Have you read the clauses of the Bill?—I have looked through it. 29. Are there any amendments you would suggest ? —I think the holidays you are giving are excessive. You have five holidays specified here, and with the half-holiday that lads of a certain age are to receive, that gives three or four weeks in the year when they are not at work, and by this Bill have to be paid. 30. You mean adding Saturday afternoon ?—Yes. For instance, they are to be paid for the whole week, and on one day they are, according to the Bill, to work only five hours, so that, taking the five holidays the Bill gives, with the three hours they are to be paid for although not working, you make the master pay a boy for a month he does not work for. As to the hours of labour, when I was in Dunedin the employes had to make up their forty-eight hours a week by working a little longer each day. 31. I think that is done in many cases?—ln Wellington it is different; the week's labour is specified to be forty-six hours and a quarter—at least I found it so when I came from Dunedin. 32. I was not aware of that ?—lt is so. We lose one hour and three-quarters on each man and boy in the week. 33. Have you any other suggestions ?—Yes; I think, for instance, you are putting the employers to an unnecessary deal of trouble in connection with the deductions to be made from the boys' wages after the first year, and putting them in the Savings Bank under a penalty. 34. Would you suggest that the boy's wages should be paid to himself, to do what he likes with them ?—Yes, I should ; because most people, having one or two sons under apprenticeship, require all the money they can get. Take the case of an apprentice who has lost his father, and is living with a widowed mother who wants every penny her son can bring her; and I think, while you wish to protect the boy's interest so that he may have a little money in hand when he finishes his time, you might be inflicting greater hardship in withholding the money in many cases; and also in inflicting a penalty on the master for not carrying oat the provisions of the Bill. 35. You think that provision should not be in the Bill at all ?—Yes; I think it is likely to do more harm than good. Another thing is tha.t we find we get on better with the boys, and they with us, if there are no indentures. I may state that all the time we have been in business we have had only one boy bound down, and that boy took it into his head that he could do as he liked, and