ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1616, 1 December 1905, Page 2

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

(To the Editor Gisborne .Timat*

Sir,—At the end of your report; pf Hon. James Carroll's address in Thursday morn-. - ing’s Times you states "A number of other.;, questions havfog'been asked and answered .•. satisfactorily. Miss Welch proposed the . following motion, etc;” The- questions . . may have .been " answered’.’ tp.it,he seller faction of your reporter; but the.questions . . wbiobl asked him were not .V answered . at all to my satisfaction, :• The; first queS* ;X tion re bushmen I stated (in writing).- es plainly as possible,: “ Are you fo fay.or v or _j amending the Workmen’s Compensation Act so as to make ewners of property liable for accidents to. confraptore (bush, contractors) ? ” I then went on to explain that if a man took a contract, to fall 200 acres of bosh and ho employed three, or four wages men, and one.of those mpis got hurt he would claim -damages from the contractor. If the contractor, could, not pay the -man; who. was hurt he would sue the owner of the property Coir damages, and the owner would have to pay. ‘.lf the contractor got hurt he conld not get any compensation. Some landowners. Wtu not let their work to any but contractors ; that is, .all men-working on the job must sign the contraot, ana «, one of them gets hurt or killed,he or his family .; have no redress." Mr Carroll did not answer the question at alt ; he went ;i on make a long speech .about what \tbe. Gov , vernment had done for the working man. and be quite lost-the. point altogether. 1.,.., ' don’t know whether or not the hoh. gentle- - man is aware of it,..but a bushtnan work* fog on a station in this dislriot .cut | his foot, and "was unable to.work Tor about a mouth ; when he (the buahmon), spoke r to the - station. manager, about ccmpensa- •j tion he was told that he oonld not claim anything beoause he was a contractor. _ I The second question,," Are you in favor or*. I abolishing the regulation whjch -provides ■ that a man must be a certain . height be* - [ fore he dan get a billet on the railway. I Mr Catroll Eaid he was not aware of .any..;.; [ suoh regulation. I handed him a lettor i from the Hon. W. Hall-Jones, in whir* s that gentleman wrote, " I bays made i quirios and fiod that sft..Gin. is the L . mum height for all branches of the . i vice, except iu the case of boys who « E engaged between the ages of 15 and .f : Of oontse, as you cannot come under 1 , head, there is no branob of the .service’, ; whioh you could.be appointed.’’ -After t reading the letter Mr Carroll said that : . that regulation was probably made because; . a man, who was only sft high, could not i do as much work ae a man' who was 6ft. , 6fo. I then asked why that ru’e should i apply, to oadets, as height would-not make i any difference in their work (which is .- 1 clerical). Mr Carroll ssid, Vlf you are - i the petsoD, perhaps, they did hdt'Bße youj * [ you are strong and healtHy." I said, |. . “ They did see me. Are you in favor of i that regulation?” to-which Mr Carroll • did not reply, but merely smiled. Now, I „ i don’t think that either of- those questions * were satisfactorily answored, and I think.; a good many people will think the e)ime«:t i I am, etc., : f HERBERT INGRAM.