Page:Labour in Madras.djvu/213

187 ciency of the Indian labour is due to removable pathological causes. “ (Indian Industral Commission Report, Appendices to the Report, Appendix L. p. 164). He makes a pertinent remark and I quote it here with a tequest that it may be considered in the light of all its implications: "Had the large employer of labour a plentiful supply of really healthy material to start with, he would still be under an obligation to secure for his operatives an environment above reproach; how much greater is the present need for hygienic environment, when in most cases cure has to precede the conservation of health?” (Ibid. P. 160). One more quotation from this expert is necessary as it is an important deduction relating to the subject in hand: “All are agreed that the organised labour of India (he means factory labour, not labour organised in trade unions or labour centres) is relatively inefficient, and that the wage earniog capacity is low. It is difficult to assess the importance of disease as a contributory cause of this state of affairs." (Ibid. P. 160). HEALTH AND SANITATION. Progressive sanitation is not a feature of the official programme. The Indian Labour Factory Commission Report records how “one witness of long practical experience stated that any man would feel exhausted even if he merely sat in a chair in some of the workrooms for eight or nine hours, the atmosphere was so foul." Sir Bhalchandra Krishna, an eminent physician and publicist of Bombay, said to the Commission that there was physical deterioration among the millhands, and was careful enough to point out that it is due to bad