FOOTWEAR & MR. T. E. TAYLOR, M.P.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1068, 6 March 1911, Page 4

FOOTWEAR & MR. T. E. TAYLOR, M.P.

ARE PAPER SOLES COMMON?

(By rclceraph.—Prusa Association.] Christchurch, March i. 11l an interview, Mr. T, E. Taylor, M.P., expresses astonishment, at o motion passed by the Canterbury Industrial Association on February 21, regretting that he made general statements in the House of Representatives in regard to the boot manufacturing industry, "without due caro and without the necessary qualification"—statements which (the motion says) "were not homo out by facts in his possession." The motion also set out (hat the facts, as stated by Mr. Taylor before the committee of the association, point to shoddy boots being l manufactured by one manufacturer oulyi working on a very small scale, in the North Island. Mr. Taylor was in the North Island when, the association passed the motion, and dealt with a report on the question He informed an interviewer that, whei he was asked by the association's committee to explain the class of goods tc which he had referred, ho replied that lit did not know that the facts in his possession at the time he mentioned the matter in the House of Representatives applied to only one factory and he did not consider that lie was concerned to find out the full extent of the evil to which he drew attention. He had satisfied himself that his facts were reliable, and ho now claimed that nothing which had been s;iid since had lessened the importance of the subject. In the House ho urged that the existence of shoddy work in boots should be revealed lo the purchaser, and manufacturers ought to disclose the Character of the materials used. Ho did not reflect upon the whole boot industry of the Dominion, and it almost seemed that someone, behind Hie motion passed by the association, was more concerned in. discrediting a political opponent than m stopping the manufacture of a rotten class of boots, which certainly had got root in New Zealand. . Mr. Taylor added that some of hia opponents stated that, at. a public- meeting in Knox Church schoolroom, he had tried to magnify the inferior quality of the materials which he showed to the audience. He did nothing of the kind. Ho siinplv handed the material to tno chairman" and asked him if that material was cardboard or leather. Throughout the whole controversy he had spoken with moderation of an evil that manufacturers ns well as the general public, should keenly'wish to tea suppressed. Purchasers could not easily test the quality of the goods ho referred to. In Wellington this week he had purchased a pair of shoes of the class which he had condemned. He had stripped one, and had found the insole to bo cardboard. The toe-cap stiffening was of the Mine material, and newspaper composition, with a little scrim of poor quality cardboard, also entered into tho manufacture of- other parts of the boot. \t first glance the boots looked well enough, but a heavy shower of ram put them out of shape, and practically pulped thent. The pair cost 12s. fid. Ho believed that shoes-of that class were bought largely by tho very people .who could least afford to have their; earnings thrown away. .On every possible occasion ho would repeat his demand that purchasers should be protected by law against the attempts now being made to build up a trade in shoddy boots.