View report page

any penalty, and to rely upon the Council's promise to pay any
costs involved in a contrary decision by the courts. Such a
course might meet with criticism by the auditors.
RAG FLOCK ACTS, 1911—1928.
There are five premises in the borough in which rag flock
is manufactured, and a number in which flock is used in the making
of bedding and furniture.
The Rag Flock Acts provide merely for the taking of
samples of flock for analysis and for the prosecution of any person
selling or possessing for use flock which contains more than 30
parts of soluble chlorine per 100,000 parts. The action taken in
this borough goes beyond these statutory powers. The Acts are
administered with enthusiasm, and the makers' premises are
visited frequently but irregularly.
As water for washing costs money, and the amount used is
a sure indication of the makers' intention to produce a clean flock,
their water accounts are examined in relation to their observed
output, and every effort is made to induce makers to sell the whole
of their output under warranty and in sealed bags, so that there
may be no confusion at other towns with flocks produced elsewhere.
Samples are taken at irregular intervals and provide a
useful indication of the fallacy of the present legal standard of
cleanliness using soluble chlorine as the indicator. A sample was
taken of a flock consisting of new and unused sugar bags, which
had been rejected by the users owing to faulty mesh. These bags
had been dressed with the usual solution, tin chloride, before sale,
and the resulting flock was certified to contain 82 parts per 100,000
of soluble chlorine. In these circumstances no proceedings were
instituted but the makers were informed that all flocks must
conform to the legal standard. No doubt later consignments
consisted of rags of possibly undesirable origin, which could be
washed by immersion down to the required chlorine standard.
During the year 35 samples were taken for analysis, and
seven of these proved to contain soluble chlorine in excess of the
limit provided. Five summonses were issued. One case was
dismissed on payment of forty-shillings costs, on proof that the
defendant had purchased the flock elsewhere, and fines of forty
shillings were imposed in each of the other four cases.
333