D. BUDDO.]

15

I.—lo.

opinion that the large sack (48 in. by 26J in.) should be retained, and the top be turned down when filled with wheat. My own experience as a farmer, and also that of the workers that I have met, shows that there is no disadvantage in lifting a short sack as compared with a long one on to the dray or railway-truck, as it is entirely a question of weight. On the other hand, the stevedores may possibly find it difficult to stow the short sacks in the ships' holds. I have the word of the principal North Canterbury miller that he has experienced no difficulty in stacking the 200 lb. bags of 26| in. width in his stores. If the general proposals which I have indicated are put into effect I consider that they will result in no loss to the farmer; but, on the other hand, he will probaly gain by the adoption of the lighter wheat-sack in having a greater weight moved per day, and will also have the benefit of a larger selection of labour for his farming operations. 2. Mr. Laurenson.] Supposing you had the short broad sack, would there not be a difficulty in stacking them ?—The principal miller in the North Canterbury district told me some time ago that his staff had no difficulty during the short period that the regulation confining the weight of the bag to 200 lb. was in force in stacking the shorter bags satisfactorily and securely. 3. With regard to relieving the strain on the men, would you rather grapple with 2001b. in a short dumpy sack, or 240 Ib. in a long sack, if both were the same width? —Undoubtedly with the 2001b., for this reason: In lifting a sack to the dray or railway-truck it is generally a question of weight, because there is no shouldering of the sack. 4. Do you not think 240 lb. would balance better on your shoulder if you were carrying it day in and day out for a long time than 200 lb. ?—I have not tried it myself, nor have my men ; but I should say from general observations that the men carrying the shorter sack would not be so much fatigued at the end of the day as the others, and the total weight carried would be greater than if they had been carrying 240 lb. sacks. 5. How long does your grain season last? —At the present time it would not extend beyond a fortnight; in previous years three to four weeks. 6. In the case of your men having to handle these sacks day in and day out, what would you prefer?— Speaking from both the farmer's and the labourer's point of view, I should say the 200 lb. The lighter sack would give a greater number of sacks and more weight moved per day, and a substantial relief to the worker.

Tuesday, Ist October, 1907. Albert Kate examined. (No. 8.) The Chairman: We shall be very glad to hear your evidence, Mr. Kaye. I think, perhaps, the best course would be for you to make a statement, and if any member of the Committee wishes to elucidate any point afterwards, you can reply to his questions. Witness: I happen to be the president of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, and I am attending as their representative. lam also connected with the grain and shipping trades. I have been more or less connected with the grain trade since 1872. My early experience was in South Australia, where, amongst my other duties as a youngster, I had to tally the wheat as it was put into the ships, and I thought it might be of interest to the Committee if I got one of these tallybooks over and showed you the weight of the sacks, which rules almost up to the present day. I have a book here of 1885, I think it is, and also one of 1900, showing the weights which ruled there, and rule right up to the present time. The Chairman: Were the weights then much the same as now obtain % Witness: They were much the same in those days as they are now. You will see that they go up as high in some cases, I think, as 340 lb. The average in anything like an ordinarily good season rarely if ever goes below 250 lb. to the bag there. You will see in these books plenty of weights of 2701b., 2801b., even 2901b., and occasionally over 3001b. I am only saying this to prove that it is not an unusual thing for these heavy bags to be carried by the men without any complaint. [Books put in.] I might say that I got those books from those leviathan wheat-shippers, John Darling and Son, the biggest people in the wheat line in South Australia. The. Chairman: Is your object in putting these books in to show that heavy weights ?— Witness: That heavy weights have, up to the present time, practically been customary in Australia. The Chairman: Are you going to give an opinion on the practice? Witness: I am going to speak with reference to that later on. Not that I am an advocate of these specially heavy weights being continued necessarily ; but these heavy weights have been borne by the men and carried by lumpers under extremes of heat, practically without any grumbling or any special injury to the men as far as can be seen, rather leading one to believe that, provided the right class of men are employed in this particular kind of work, no injury results. We have discussed this matter down South for three or four years now, at odd intervals ; we have got beyond that stage in which we discussed whether we should have a 240 lb. or a 200 lb. sack, I take it, and the object of this Committee is to decide, not on whether the weight shall be 240 lb. or 200 lb., but what size of sack shall contain 200 lb. The Chairman: No, what size of sack would be most suitable. We are here to hear all sides of the question, as to which is the most suitable size of sack and the most convenient weight for handling. Witness: I think the matter started at the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce. We had a letter about four years ago from two doctors at Lyttelton, testifying that two men had died, in their opinion, from aneurism of the heart, caused by their lifting these heavy sacks. This was felt to be a very serious question, and ever since that time we have been trying to decide on a sack