The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1916. THE LEVY CONTRACTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2879, 18 September 1916, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1916. THE LEVY CONTRACTS

. , « A'r first sight Levy, the contractor convicted or putting inferior sewing material into uniforms supplied by him. to our troops, may appear to have paid a severo penalty for his offence. He has been put to heavy legal expense; he has had to pay over £2000 by way of penalty; he has had . his contract cancelled; and he has been exposed to such odium as may attach to his action ip the eyes of the public. But when the nature of the offence is considered and the huge profits which he must have already mada out of his contracts are taken into account, he may well consider himself lucky to have escaped on the terms now stated. The very best case possible was made out for him. All the ingenuity of skilled counsel was brought to bear in his favour Messrs. A. Gray, K. 0., and M. Myers, who appeared for him in the Law Court proceedings and in the negotiations with tho ' Crown Law Department, did all that was possible to belittle the caso for the Crown, ably presented by Mr. Macassey. They particularly stressed the smallness of tho gain which coulcl have resulted from ■ the use of cotton instead of linen thread in a portion of the clothing made up hy Levy, and they endeavoured to substantiate Levy's claim that he was personally ignorant of what was going on in his own workshop. But tho facts were against them, and Levy was very properly convicted of tho offence with which ho stood charged, and being convicted it was not only just, but as a matter of public policy necessary, that he should be severely penalised. It is difficult to conceive anything more repugnant to public sentiment than an attempt by a war contractor to add illegitimately to his .profits by the use of inferior material in the making of tho clothing supplied to our troops. It is true tnat in Levy's case tho Crown did not . attempt to show that our soldiers had suffered any hardship or inconvonioncc through tho departuro from tho contract conditions in tho matter of the thread used in the making of the uniforms complained of. That rnuoh is in his favour. But when it isjfcorne in mind that he must have made many thousands of pounds profit out of his contracts, and that ho knew that any failuro on his part in tho matter of workmanship or material, if not detected, would be liable to prejudicially affect the men who are enduring terrible hardships and risking their lives fighting his and their country's battles, it is impossible to find "any ground for lenioncy. The Minister for Munitions, Mr. A. Myers, has very properly insisted on a substantial penalty, and has also cancellcd Levy's existing contract. That is satisfactory so far as it goes and will meet with general approval. There is one point, however,. in Mr. Macassey's letter setting out tho terms of settlement which leaves some room for doubt. That is as to Levy's position as a sub-contractor. Tho Crown cancels Levy's existing contract and declines to enter into any furthor contracts with him during tho continuance of the war, but it permits him fco_ continue as a sub-con-tractor making up goods for tho Wellington Woollen Company or ; any other reputable supplier "to bring about the faithful execution of their contracts." This is reasonable enough assuming that it applies only to arrangements already entered into. It would be unfair to contractors who had committed themselves to obligations to supply a given quantity of goods in a given time, rolying on Levy to do a share of tho work, to deprivo them now of his services. But it should bo raado quite clear that Levy cannot got round the penalty imposed as to future work by taking it up as a sub-contractor. Unless this is,

clone it would be a simple matter tor him, or anyone else similarly situated, if they so desired, to arrange with other firms to do as subcontractors tho work which the Grown refuses to give to them as contractors. This possibility may have been foreseen and provided against, but it is not clear from the terrusof Mit. Macassey's letter that such is tho case.