THE FLAXMILLERS' APPEAL.

Manawatu Herald, 18 May 1899, Page 2

THE FLAXMILLERS' APPEAL.

The following flaxmillers were present, or represented : — Messrs Hennessy & Co., Westwood & Co., H. Andrews, Hurley & Watson, King & Baker, Coley and Davis, Ferris 8c Coley, G. Coley, T. East, Symons Brosv, and Austin Bros.^ Mr Shan naghan, Inspector -of Factories, said he appeared for the Department. Section 27 of the Act of 1894 was the one used to lay the information under. Mr Greenfield said nothing could be considered except whjat was mentioned in the petition. He ruled that all parties must be guided by the-Act. Mr Shannaghan said the appeal was laid under Section 26; . Mr Andrews said the Act might be right enough in the Old Country where much machinery was used. In his experience they had done away with slack pullies, as being dangerous to the men at work. The loose pulley was similar to a gun revolving continually, and liable to burst at any time. The vibration on the spindle was enormous, and whilst the belt was on it it was safe, but the Inspector of Machinery had agreed that they coui<J' not be'protected. --*" In answer to the Inspector, Mr Andrews said they removed the safeguard (as 'termed by Inspector), to secure safety. Experience had taught it was impossible to get them fitted safely. It was no expense getting the loose pullies fixed. An opinion from Cable & Co., as t^ loose pullies being advisable ; and from : Seager, who was decidedly of opinion that flaxmillers should be fitted with fast and losse pullies, also from Crabtree & Son was read. Mr Andrews said that none of these men had had any experience in flaxdressing. Messrs Booth, Macdonald & Co. reported less positively about the value of loose pullies, and that it might nutat ■« always be advisable to order themin*, mills. The S.M. said that the law had to be observed, and it was supposed that it was framed tor the best. The Inspector said they had to insist on all safeguards and improvements. Mr Andrews asked how it was the j Inspector of Machinery had passed the plant. ■> The Inspector called attention to Section 66. He desired to be as lenient as possible, and he asked for some time to be fixed to have these things done. The S.M. said he could not act in that manner now. Mr Hennessy called attention that it was all a conflict of authority between the Inspector of Machinery and the Inspector of Factories, and could not the millers appeal to the Inspector of Machinery for his opinion. The S.M. said it was open to the millers to appeal to the Government to have a report from the Inspector of Machinery, and to seek permission to avoid the directions of the Factory Act. The appeal was dismissed.