The Cotton Factory Times. — 1909-01-22 (Manchester, Greater Manchester, England)

MANCHESTER MAN.  [TO THE EDITOR OF THE "FACTORY TIMER.I Sir,—The writer signing himself "Yankee" should change his nom de plume, for he is no Yankee. His weak reply to my letter needs no comment, for it is no answer at all. Yet to make assertions that Janerehire tacklers earn but 14e. 6d. per week of 40 hours is ridiculous; for how is his particular case to be judged as an average? Be. sides, he did not mention particulars as to how many looms he "tackled," the claw of work, etc. Also how many "tacklers" throughout Lancashire are working for leas wages than weavers, and h.ow many are there doing labourers' work besides overlooking? If I did not know what tackling was, both in English, American and Canadian mills, I would be the last to write on the subject. " Yankee " makes the assertion that Lancashire overlookers "cannot even command a wage," and he furthermore says that he has "to depend on a lot of caprioleua women for his very life." What does he mean by this last-named sentence? As for Lancashire overlookers not commanding a wage, I know of them in Preston and other places earning, when trade was good, £3 and £3 its, per week. Of course this ie not general, any more than 14s bd, per week is general; yet English tacklers are paid, at least, 30 per cent more than American tacklers, comparing work for work. The writer, "One of Them," writes just like a LATICAbIIiTO tackler, for he delights in" throwing mud," sneering, giving excaws, and making a fool of himself generally. His reply is really no better than the misnamed "Yankee." He speaks of " effusion." Are facts 60 annoying that they cannot bear to have them mentioned? And as to what I do, that has nothing to do with the case if facts can be given. "One of Them" says his sister worked under a French-Canadian tackler; that "the very worst Lancashire tackler could beat the Canadian hollow in his craft." Really how fine indeed, for "One of Them" borrows his splendid report from his sister, and I suppose if she says it is so then we must believe it is so. Yet I would adviee this writer when supporting an argument to write what he himself knows, and not depend on what someone else says. Speaking about good yarns, the Lancashire mills on similar goods as Canadian or American mills use about the same grade of cotton on an average, especially on the better class goods; and as for hie I remark about a half a dozen learners " gaiting" I warps for the tackler, this is nonsense. I would like "One of Them" to prove his remark about a mill having 300 fresh overlookem in 20 years, and state which town this is in, even if he cannot mention the mill. I well know an overlooker's duties, and I quite agree that some concerns have the penny wise, pound foolish policy of expecting tacklers to keep machinery in condtion on small supplies, but it is not the rule everywhere. As for the weavers being awkward, this is exceptional, and the nicest girl weaver is generally bored to death by the arrogant foul-mouthed tackler. In fact, how many hundreds of weavers have committed suicide through the tackler driving them insarre? But there is no record of any tackler committing suicide through obstinate weavers. Tacklers ought to be drummed out of the mill where they humbug young women without cause, and the young men weavers who allow the women to be so treated are weaklings and cowards. In reference to his sneering remark that he would employ "Laneashireman," if he were a bun, to tackle 250 looms at 30s. per week, it is uncalled for, and this sort of stuff is not argument. "One of Them" will find that the future will bring about the re-organisation of tacklers' duties and wages, despite his silly talk and threats that no one else can tackle looms only those who are now in charge.—Yours, etc.,