ANOTHER WARNING.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 163, 22 July 1901, Page 3

ANOTHER WARNING.

(To the Editor of the Times ) Sin, —I would like to say a few words in reply to Mr F. Stafford’s letter in your issue of Tuesday in regard to insuring workmen. He says in effect that employers should not engage men who arc not insured against accident. AVhy, I would like to ask, does Mr Stafford go out of his way to point out these matters? If Mr Stafford desires to got the public approval ho should pose in his right colors as a working man, and stick up for the rights of working men. Docs ho or anyone else dare to say that it is faulty legislation that a workman and his wife and family should be protected from depending upon charity because the man has happened to meet with an accident through the fault of a careless contractor ’? Mr Peekover joins in the chorus and refers to an “ unprincipled, lazy employee.” Does the fault always lie on the side of the employee ’? Has he read of the Inch Cape Valley disaster, where three men were killed outright, as the jury decided, owing to the culpable neglect of duty of the man in charge ? Perhaps Mr Stafford would like all the working men to work under his supervision. Does he claim that all employers are as careful of their men as Mr Stafford ? He might have gone further, and explained what a " terrible ” price the employer has to pay in insurance premiums, and ho might also have explained that the wages of the worker now are only sufficient to comfortably maintain wife and family.—l am, etc., ‘ F, LcriYNPES.