Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1899. Loose Pullies.

Manawatu Herald, 20 May 1899, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1899. Loose Pullies.

On Thursday the Stipendiary Magis- 1 trate's Court was occupied for some i time by hearing the appeal of the 1 flaxmillers against an order made by j the Inspector of Factories, under sec- 1 tion 27 of " The Factories Act, 1894," \ to provide in their mills belt-shifters c 9X " other sate mechanical contrivances i

for the purpose of throwing on or off belts and pullies, and wherever possible, machinery therein shall be pro* vided with loose pullies." The case is an apt illustration of the very muchgoverned people that we are. Our legislators are continually declaring their anxiety to foster and develope the industries of the colony, and then immediately they set to work to frame legislation about matters they know little, and thus create impediments not only to the profitable, but actually to the safe working of such industries. The flax-dressing industry is a very important one to the colony, and is chiefly conducted by a class of men which the Liberal Party profess so much interest in. These men are no better and no worse than the average, and owing to their acquaintance with the wants of labour from practical acquaintance with work, are not the men to be suspected even of having no care for the best interests and safety of their employees, and thus a general objection to the orders of a factory inspector, must be taken as being of more than ordinary weight. Most of the flaxmillers in this district have invested the total of their capital in the business, and thus they have every inducement to cause them to be anxious in every way to comply with the law. Once a year their mills have been visited by a Government officer, the Inspector of Machinery, who has given his sanction to the manner in which their machinery was fixed, but now, five years after the Factories Act was passed, they get another Government officer to boss them round, and whose opinion, based simply on the letter of the Act, as he disclaimed any knowledge of machinery, is to supersede the opinion of an expert. Is it any wonder that these men appeal from such orders, given by an unskilled official, and which would be, in the opinion of the millers, the reverse to the object the Act was framed for, that of the safety of the employees. The millers did not make out a good case from their point of view before the Magistrate, all from that fatal want of combination which has been the loss to millers ever since 1890. We fear, however, that any defence raised would have been useless, as the Magistrate expressed himself as bound by the words of the Act, just as much as the Inspector represented himself to be. It was curious why no question was raised as to the length of time that has occurred from the passing of the Act to the time when the Factory Inspector discovered the flaxmills required his inspection. If the need is so urgent tor alteration as was represented, who is to be blamed for so many years of carelessness ? One wrong, on the part of the Department does not make the millers right, if it can be shown that they are not so, but we contend that the Act has been read, but it has not been understood, both by Bench and Inspector. The Factories Act was framed for the care, comfort, and* safety of employees. The action so suddenly taken by the Inspector is on the assumption that the carrying out of the system of loose pullies will tend to secure the satety of the employees. Surely this was the question that needed arguing before the Magistrate, for no one disputed the section of the Act relied upon, but they did the interpretation put upon it. The section sets out that " the occupier of every factory, including any or every Government railway workshop, where machinery is used shall furnish to the approval of the Inspector, beltshifters or other safe mechanical contrivances for the purpose of throwing on or off belts or pulleys, and wherever possible, machinery therein shall be provided with loose pullies." The section provides the room for discussion, as of course it is practical to put loose pullies almost on every part of machinery, but it becomes the question whether it is possible to place loose pullies on flaxmill plant with safety to the employees. The Inspector and Bench were not troubled about the safety of the hands, but were very troubled because the Aci appeared to enforce an order which had not been attended to. This was what was missed by the spokesman of the millers, though he thoroughly well knew of the facts and mentioned the reasons why these loose pullies were not used, only unfortunately he was unable to show that the Act would bear the suggestion that instructions contained therein were only to be carried out wherever possible for the satety of the employees. The Factory Act was probably framed from an English Statute, modified for this colony, and its chief contents refer to what are actually factories. In these large buildings a quantity of machinery is put in motion from one engine, and by system of shafting and pullies work a great number of separate machines, which need frequent stopping. Here loose pullies are a necessity, as otherwise a number of workers would be idle while the machinery was stopped for belt-shift-ing, or big risks would be run in shifting belts whilst the machinery was in motion. In most factories also the speed the pullies travel at is not an extraordinary one, and thus extra pullies on the machines or shafting cause no extra risk. In flaxmilling the case is just the reverse. Mr Andrews, a miller of very many years' experience stated that at one tima loose pullies were in use in flaxmills, but the experience gained had caused them to be done away with sixteen years ago. It was not the cost of the pullies that had anything to do with the matter, but it was found they were dangerous from too much reliance having been placed on them by the hands, and thus more risk of accident was incurred, and also that from the speed the strippers were run, which is from 1,700 to 2,000 revolutions a minute, was a source of the greatest danger, as the loose pulley after constant whirling at that rate, would expand and fly in pieces, and there had been no safe method devised to prevent this occurring. Mr Andrews mentioned that he had witnessed two pullies fly in this manner. The Inspector, as we have mentioned, could not say anything against this, but put three ironfounders' letters in, which were fairly and promptly challenged as being but the opinion of men who knew not flaxmilling. From what we have been able to

gather we believe the millers have right and sense on their side. Whenever the belts now require alteration it is a rule they are not touched until the engine is stopped. In the lamentable accident at a mill which has been the reason for this wonderful departmental activity, the unfortunate man met his death not to aid his work, but in an attempt to save his employers' property, and the same accident would have occurred whether the loose pullies had been on or not. The public will be bound to come to the conclusion that this fad of the department has only been enforced to make a show of activity, as the experience of working millers and the Inspector of Machinery must be of more value than an official whose only guide is the mere text of one of our wonderful Acts of Parliament.