The Enlarged "Chronicle."

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 294, 14 September 1910, Page 5

The Enlarged "Chronicle."

To the Editor. gi r< —Allow me to congratulate the energy and enterprise of the management of the "King Country Chronicle" who, in the space of a few short years, have worked up the paper into its present position. It is very seldom, indeed, that a new country paper so sonn finds it necessary to join the Press Association and increase its I reading matter to such an extent in | the short time of its existence. I fee! sure that the enterprise so displayed will bear good fruit, and will be the means of putting the"Chronicle" into the homes of all in the King Country.—l am., etc., "TI-TREE WHISKERS." Otorohanga, September 9th. To the Editor. Sir, —I wish to compliment you on the enlargement of the "King Country Chronicle." Your numerous subscribers in the back-blocks look upon the "Chronicle" as the only paper published in the King Country that takes an independent stand, and does not hesitate, when the occasion arises, to vent the settlers' grievances, irrespective of persons. lam expressing my fellow-settlers' opinion and my own in stating that the "Chronicle" is thoroughly up-to-date and perfectly conversant with the requirements of the King Country. There is none of the cringing, carping, Governmentsmoodger in this composition. When a settler has a just grievance to vindicate, the "Chronicle" is not afraid to publish it. The writer is not informed that it is too strong, etc. I heard a settler here recently state that the "Chronicle" was equally as good a paper as the "Taranaki Herald,."—l am. etc., F. C. STUART, Member of Ohura County Council. (Spare us, Mr Stuart' We are fallible and human, and claim no special virtue beyond endeavouring to fairly represent our settlers in their needs. — Ed. K.C.O) " Labour-Only." To the Editor. Sir, —In your issue of 7th inst. a correspondent nom -de - plumed "A Builder," held forth for a few minutes by way of your spare type, on the above subject. Your correspondent evidently ha* not a very extensive knowledge of the aforesaid subject, inasmuch as the remarks he made in various parts of his letter are a "moral cert." to raise a hornet's nest. How is he getting on when some of the "labour-only" contractors with a little detective instinct, sort out his finger print. By the way, "labour only" contractors are not the only ones who do not care if their work holds together longer than the time of receiving their cheques. I agree with "A Builder" in that "labour-only" contracts are not as a rule satisfactory, but he was wrong to use the word "boycott" in connection with a builders' association, as I presume he means a duly registered master builders' industrial union. A union of that description would benefit and protect every member, and would do the same for the building public. Their rules make it possible for a better class of work to be done. But they don't ''boycott" in the meaning of "A Builder." The usual rule with reference to "labouronly" jobs is as follows: No member of the union shall tender against another member for "labour-only" but should the first member who submits a price agree to allow a second member to submit a price he may do so; the builders' union does not attempt to dictate to the building public in any way. A person may buy all of the necessary material, which he has a perfect right to do. He can go to a builder, a painter, a plumber, a bricklayer, etc., all of whom are members of the union. He can obtain a price from them without any trouble and go on in the ordinary way, but they will not tender competitively for labour, "the reasons being that each has to pay the same wage and each expects to receive the same for his labour as the other. I may here remark that some members of the union are not financial enough to keep a competent staff, but they have to live ; somehow. So they watch the "labour--1 only" jobs like a cat watching a kiore. i—l am, etc., ! EX-BUILDER.