The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, JULY 5, 1906. WET WOOL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1800, 5 July 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, JULY 5, 1906. WET WOOL.

Tin-; Christchurch Truss gives some additional information regarding the subject of tires in ships containing wool. We have

no doubt (states the Press) that several colonists now at Home will be able to point out that the matter lies to some extent in the hands of the underwriters themselves. The insurance companies in New Zealand used, at one time, to employ a ii inspector at each of the four chief ports, whose duty it was to inspect wool before exportation, with the object of preventing any that was wot being shipped. Lloyd's! however, declined to pay any share of the cost, of these inspectors, ami as their underwriters managed to secure a good proportion of the shipping busines, the local companies naturally failed to see the force of paying inspectors whose work so considerably benefitted Lloyd’s. So the system of wool inspection at ports dropped, It is quite probable that if it had been continued some, if not all, of .the recent tires would have been prevented, and Lloyd's underwriters would have been saved considerable loss It was to be anticipated., therefore, that they would, itase sotpc steps {o protect their interests. The proposal that- an enquiry should be made at this end hardly meets the case. As long.ago as 1894 an enquiry was heljj into tlic matlcr -by a select eouimillee ul

the Logmlativ# Council, on tho motion of Mi' Slmmski. The witnesses examined included men versed in packing and dumping wool, shipping men, underwriters, and a scientist in tho person of Sir James Hector. Tho committee, in the course of a somewhat non-committal report, expressed the opinion that “in very few cases are bales of wool sent I rom sheep station* in a damp condition, and that the danger arises mainly from wool shipped by certain linns of fellmongers I who have not proper means of thoroughly I i I drying wool. . . Tho evidence taken I I seems to show that there are very few I i I cases of the shipment of wet wool, and 1 : I they do not recommend fresh legislation lon tlis subject.” Sir James Hector in his I evidence went deeply into tho question I from the chemical point of view, and his I 1 statements would no doubt bo re-affirmed I [ to-day. The necessity of a further enquiry I II (adds the Press) is not at all clear. It the 1 I underwriters will agree to pay their fair 1 I share of the cost of inspecting wool before 1 I I shipment, the system formerly in vogue I II would no doubt bo re-established next I 11 season. Tho shipping companies, as has 1 11 been stated, intend for their part, to find I I out tho owners of the hales in which the II fires occurred, and bring the matter under 11 their notice. Such danger as exists from | 11 the shipment of wet wool is happily of 11 very infrequonL occurrence, and doubtless II only arose this year because of the e.xces--111 sive wetness ot the wool season. Mith 11 tlic return of dry seasons the risk will be 11 infinitesimal, as in tho past, and will be 11 still further minimised if the lesson ol tho 11 recent experiences is laid to heart by those I concerned.