7

I.—lo

J. ANSTEY.]

from sixteen to twenty years of age who have to handle sacks. 2401b. is rather heavy for them, and to them there would be an advantage as against the disadvantage of the small extra cost. I do not think the whole body of farmers would very seriously object, provided the extra cost were small and the inconvenience not appreciable. I may say that when this question was under discussion I got six sacks sewn to the width suggested, filled with 200 lb. of wheat, sewn, and stacked for exhibition, and all agreed that such a sack would be a very nice sack to handle. Its length was twice its width, it stacked conveniently, and it was very convenient to handle. 6. Hon. Mr. McGowan , .] Would you prefer to see the sacks remain as they are, or to have what you suggest in regard to the 2001b. sack? —I have said very clearly that from my own personal experience Ido not wish any change. I think there is no urgent necessity for it. But, as I said, I recognise that those who have to handle sacks have a right to have a say. I prefer, and I think a very large majority of farmers would prefer, the sack to remain at it is. 7. Mr. Hogg.] I understand from what you say that if the Government would take the steps that you suggest with a view to having an alteration made in the size of the sacks, and if the men themselves who are interested showed that they were desirous of having a smaller sack substituted for the present one, the farmers would be perfectly agreeable? —I did not say they would be perfectly agreeable. I said that if the alteration were made there would be no very serious objection. 8. Do you think the adoption of the cental system would be an improvement?— Not nearly so great an improvement as some people think. At present all grain is really sold at per pound, and not per bushel. Nominally it is sold at per bushel, but all grain is weighed. If my sacks were to average an extra half-pound a bushel, I should get paid for that half-pound—that is to say, when dealing with a respectable firm. 9. Mr. Barber.] What would be the requirements of this colony alone in the way of these small sacks: do you know ? —I cannot tell you that. 10. Supposing that we could not get the co-operation of Australia in this matter, do you not think the demand in New Zealand would be sufficient to warrant the Indian manufacturers making them? —It is possible that that might be so. I am almost afraid it would be too small. I think you ought to try to get the co-operation of Australia. I notice that the Lumpers' Unions in Australia have already made the same demand, and it has been refused on the grounds that I stated —namely, that the change is not necessary. W. Bates examined. (No. 3.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you I— President of the Lyttelton Stevedores' Union. 2. And you are here to represent that body? —Yes. 3. Would you like to make a statement first, or to be questioned? —The only statement I could make is that for some years past the men have tried to get a reduction in the weight of sacks, considering that it caused" excessive strain on a man handling the present sacks. They thought it was accomplished when Sir Joseph Ward gave the order to the Railway, and ("here has been a lot of bitter talk about it being rescinded, although they recognised that the 200 lb. sack was not an ideal sack to handle. Still, the concession, from the point of view of not having to cairy such a great weight, was very acceptable. That is all the statement I wish to make. I should prefer to be questioned now. 4. Mr. Lcmrenson.] How many men are there in your union? —Between three and four hundred. 5. How many of those men are fit to carry grain-sacks? —There are a good many who carry them that are not fit to. 6. They are not all able to go grain-carrying? —No. 7. What sort of physique has the average man at it? —We are not such big men as Mr. Anstey, on the average. I am not above the average. If a man is an under-sized man he has not much chance. He must show that he is a good man, or the employers will say he is not wanted. 8. When a man is a fairly good grain-carrier, how long does he work at grain-carrying: is he at it every day I —He would be in some cases in the sheds; but we never know one day what a boat is going to take the next —whether it will be grain or another sort of produce. There are some men who, in the grain season, are at it for months, probably. Some men might get their living at it all the year round. 9. How far have they got to carry these sacks in the sheds? —I should say the longest distance would be about 20 yards. 10. And have they got to carry them up at all?—If they cannot get a whip to take them up in all cases, they have to. 11. What is the height of some ladders to go up '—Twenty or thirty steps. 12. They have to go up twenty or thirty steps?—l would not make a definite statement; but the men tell us twenty or thirty. 13. Then, when they get up there, who does the storing?— There is a man called the stacker. 14. Have they got to do the storing in the holds of vessels? —Yes, except with Home boats. They sometimes give you a man to help, because they want to use all the space available; but, as a rule, you have to build up your own bags. It is altogether different from the shed-work. 15. Have they got to stoop when they have to do that, in handling these big bags?—ln the East Coast boats, in some places you cannot walk upright when carrying a bag. There is the width of a bag between the beams, and you have to put a bag in between the beams and the place. That is so as to fill the vessel up. 16. Does that cause strain? —Oh, yes! 17. In carrying bags along the steamer's hold —what is the hold, wood or iron? —In some cases it is iron. but we always try to avoid carrying on iron. 18. In case you fall on the iron and the sack comes on top of you?—lf you have hold ot a weight and you slip, you naturally hang on to it. If you have the presence of mind to let it go, of course, you may be all right,