127

A.—sa

REPORT OP PROCEEDINGS OP THE CONFERENCE.

The CHAIRMAN, having put first the amendment and then the resolution, said :—The Imperial representatives have voted for the amendment, the Colonial representatives have voted unanimously, I take it. for Mr. Belcher's resolution. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Mr. President, I am certainly in favour, and I have voted in favour, of the amendment. 1 did so because I think that an arrangement having been come to by the British seamen and the British owners, it is undesirable for us to try and disturb that arrangement; I think we should leave it to British interests to see how it works. With our own legislation, it is another matter. Mr. MILLS : I would like to say one word. Sir Joseph Ward asked me to explain that he had an important appointment which might prevent him from being bare. As regards this question, I do not know how he would vote. The New Zealand delegates present have voted for Mr. Belcher's motion, Sir Joseph Ward expressed himself in favour of it as it stood on the paper, but in view of the amendment I do not know whether hemight have modified his views. I merely offer that explanation Tin: CHAIRMAN : Mr. Belcher, I think your motion comes next. Mr. BELCHER : My motion is as follows :— " That it be a recommendation from this Conference to the Board of Trade to ascertain and investigate the various clauses attached by shipowners to the Articles of Agreement signed by the crews of vessels. This with the view of securing uniformity in this respect, and also establishing the principle of equity as between employer and employed. This resolution, Mr. President, is in connection with the clauses that are attached to ship's Articles of Agreement at the time the engagement is made with the crew. Now this might also be said to be a subject on which the Colonial delegates have no right to make any suggestion, seeing that it mainly applies to British ships; I may mention that in New Zealand the system that has been adopted recently is this, that no stipulation of any description shall go on a ship's Articles unless it has first of all been agreed to by the seamen and employers, and then receives the sanction of the Marine Department. Some few years ago there used to be quite a number of stipulations on the New Articles, some of which were found to be prejudicial to the interests of the men, and others which were found to be in conflict with the Merchant Shipping Act. A good deal of friction occurred in connection with this, and what I stated just now with regard to the employers and seamen and the sanction of the Marine Department, that is the arrangement now come to with regard to the clauses. As far as I can understand here in Britain, and so far as my knowledge of the English Articles which J have seen in New Zealand is concerned, it appears to me that the British shipowner can attach any conditions that he chooses on the Articles of Agreement. Whether that is permissible under your law or not, I do not know, but I notice that in some of the clauses which are attached to the Articles—and I have before me a ship's Articles where the thing occurs I notice there is a clause there which allows the master of the ship to deduct two weeks' wages for an act of misconduct in the shape of being absent without leave Now if the clauses in the British Merchant Shipping Act and in the New Zealand Merchant Shipping -Vet are looked at, it will be seen that the penalty that is laid down there for being absent without leave is a forfeiture of two days' pay. My contention is this, that the clause on the Articles here, which reads as follows :— The said master shall be entitled to deduct from the said crew two weeks' pay," is illegal, and that m all cases where this deduction has been made from the men's wages, that they have practically been mulcted unjustly, for the amount of excess beyond that laid down in the Merchant Shipping knd ,_t e rh?' h f£ ,eCently u r °P f,e,i "P in New Zea land, and that is the reason which prompted me to give of motion in connection with the matter The case has cropped up in New Zealand since I left The master of a British ship endeavoured to deduct 14 days' I„S_ Ta ,i X ', i' S cr « w '-_- Wagcs in a P° rt in New Zealand and he local authorities there ruled that the clause on the Articles being contrary to law it was ultra vires

and that they would not allow the master to make the deduction. I want to point out that your ships are constantly coming to New Zealand and our local authorities are continually being asked to adjudicate, and I therefore suggest the desirability of placing as few clauses as possible on your Articles, and having them strictly in accordance with the law, so that there is no conflict. Another aspect of the question is the legal one. In this respect the craw of a vessel are, perhaps, prosecute'd by the master of a ship for not doing certain things, and, invariably, when the case comes before what might be termed the Inferior Courts —that is where the matter can be dealt with summarily —the magistrate simply looks at the clauses of the Articles and very often says it is a contract which must be adhered to. Now if that is held in law to be the case, what I want to point out is, that seeing that the crew are the persons who have to abide by that contract, they should have some voice in saying what the nature of the contract should be. Now I do not want to say anything which may appear to be offensive, but I must say that so far as the clauses of English ships' Articles are concerned, it appears to me that the Shipping Federation sit down calmly and deliberately and frame these clauses for the Articles whereby they protect themselves, and impose as many obligations as they possibly can upon the men who are going to form their crew. I do believe, from some of the sets of Articles that I have seen in New Zealand that that is done, if I may say so with malice aforethought; it is done with the deliberate intention of keeping these men as closely under their subjection as they can possibly keep them. There is no doubt about that judging from the stringency of the clauses that are attached, and this is the unfortunate position the seaman is in. The shipowner has the very best brains the world can provide him with to frame and adjust those clauses for him Thev are put on the ship's Articles. There is a crowd o'f men, many of them illiterate, many of them, unfortunately, in an unfit condition to know what they are signing or anything else; these mea are collected together at a shipping office, an Agreement, or alleged Agreement, is itad over to them very rapidly in some cases, and I will defy the most intelligent man in this world to understand from a brief reading of those clauses the correct import of what they mean I therefore say that advantage is taken of the seaman in this respect, that he really does not know what is the nature of the agreement he is signing until he gets into some kind of trouble, and the agreement is taken up bofore a magistrate for interpretation. To avoid what appears to me an inequitable and unjust advantage which is taken of the seaman, I think there should be some understanding between the shipowner and the rnens representatives, and they should come to some conclusion among themselves as to what they think are proper precaution! to take with regard to agreements, and those should be submitted to the Board of Trade tor their approval or otherwise; and if the Board of Trade approve of them, then let those clauses go on the Articles, and let them be the standard ones which no one can either add to or take away from. In the New Zealand Articles, all that is recited on Uhem is he nature of the voyage If it is coastal, it is simplv the coastal trade, and if it is inter-Colonial, then of course the latitudes and longitudes between which they can trade are specified. Then on the other hand' the only clause which is allowed to go on, as is shown on these Articles, is this :-" The New Zealand Arbitration Court awards in respect of seamen for the time being in force shall be deemed to be part of this agreement so far as they apply." Now that i ?Jk which is illegal, nothing which takes %n unjust ad van an g d it wcV 61, Wh °T are b ° Und by that agreement; 70.l A a t , ' l - can assure y° u ' b "th in New Zealand and I know in a much larger degree in \»7 Wore the W C°o U , d t fTV lm ™™ ~Hf tafiu «£Z t lf tllese a g re ements were made more caTses should 6 n°t * Unif ° rm clauses should not be put on agreements. I remember going on board one ship-which, unfortunately, iTether at the bottom now or else floating about the Southern Ocean, that is the "Port Stevens" which broke her shaft and was abandoned-I remember going on board en,m2r? mto a , dis P ute as to whether the 8 men were 2&? L ne aTm a 5 pnnted matter on that ship's Articles as would almost