EDITORIAL. 
AUSTRALIAN LEATHER AT THE FRONT. 
A report upon the quality of Australian leather used in the manu: 
facture of Australian boots supplied to soldiers on active service has 
been received from the Secretary for Defence. In his report, Mr. 
Trumble says :— } 
“Vast quantities of Australian boots, harness, saddlery, and leather 
equipment were used for military purposes in France, Egypt, and Pales- 
tine during the war, and only in respect of two classes of leathers were 
any complaints received, namely, the bark-tanned sole leather in the Aus- 
tralian boots and the light chrome-tanned leather used in certain parts of 
the personal equipment of the men. The equipment referred to was 
only provided in view of the extreme shortage of the correct pattern, and 
was not intended for use on the fighting front; it was an expedient. No 
complaints whatever were received regarding the wearing qualities or 
suitability generally for active service of any of the harness and saddlery 
forwarded from Australia, and, although numerous complaints were 
received during the winter months in respect to the Australian boots in 
wear on the Western front, it was found, after thorough investigation, 
that such complaints were also made in respect to all patterns of boots in 
use, and it was eventually recognised that no boot would remain water- 
tight for any length of time under the conditions existing in France and 
Belgium during the winter. Moreover, there is a considerable weight of 
evidence that the temporary substitution of Imperial for Australian 
pattern footwear led to an increase in the number of complaints received. 
This, however, it is considered, was due to the greater comfort of the Aus- 
tralian boot. 
“ After numerous tests by practical use in the field and by dissection 
by experts in London and Australia, it was generally conceded that, 
whilst the Australian upper leather was equal to the best procurable in 
England, the sole leather compared unfavorably with that tanned in 
the United Kingdom. The inferiority of the Australian sole leather was 
considered to be due to the failure of tanners to allow the hides to remain 
Jong enough in the pits.” 
WATER RESISTANCE OF SOLE LEATHER. 
There is a note in the issue of Science, of 27th June, by Messrs. 
H. P. Holman and F. P. Veitch, upon the subject of “ Testing materials 
for increasing the water resistance of sole leather,’ in which it is 
stated:—“ To determine waterproofing value, several pieces of sole 
leather, which are always of the same tannage and from the same 
section of the hide but which differ in texture, are impregnated by 
immersing in the treating material for ten minutes at 60° O©., followed. 
by warming in an oven at 60° for fifteen minutes. Water absorption 
is determined by soaking in water for twenty-four hours, with periodical * 
flexing, and weighing the wet leather after removing all excess from the 
surface. The leather is also weighed before treating, after treating, 
and in the air dry condition after testing. From these weights the 
quantity of treating material taken up by the leather, the actual water 
absorption, and the loss in weight on testing, are calculated in per- 
centages. The actual water absorption is calculated on the basis of 
the final dry weight. All dry weights should be made after exposing’ 
201 
