A.—sa

129

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE.

Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : It is not intended for either purpose. It is simply a suggestion that there should always be a clause saying : " Nothing in this Act shall "be construed in a manner inconsistent with treaty "obligations which are binding on the Colonies." Sir WILLIAM LYNE : That is the very point; that is what I shall oppose. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : I want to ask a question as to business. Is there to be any limit of time as to the notices put on the business paper, becanse it seems to me •it is like the widow's cruse of oil, it is always growing ? When we think we are near the bottom, we find next morning we are only at the top. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : Mr. Thomson wants to get away. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : I do not want to get away. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : If you do not, what do you want to get away for ? Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : I want to get on with the business. The CHAIRMAN : I have been thinking the same thing, because they grow every day. But it seems to me in going through the resolutions that it is very likely that the Imperial Government or the Commonwealth Government may find there is something that wants to be cleared up before we part, and that it will be necessary to move a supplemental resolution in order to clear up one or two things. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : Anything arising out of the business done I would not object to, but anything entirely new ■ The CHAIRMAN : I do not think we ought to have a new matter. Is there any chance of disposing of Mr. Belcher's motion before we go? I suggest you should conclude this, and then we could begin next time with your big motion, Sir William. I do not think it ought to take long. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : There is a lot I want to say on that. Sib WILLIAM LYNE : It is a technical matter, and I have nothing to say. The CHAIRMAN : I do not think it would take more than twenty minutes. The Chairman then left, and Mr. Llewellyn Smith took the chair. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I think there is a feeling we should'not go on. Mr. Llewellyn Smith then took the feeling of the meeting, and it was decided to finish the discussion of the motion. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I wanted to bring the attention of the Board of Trade particularly to some cases which show the necessity for the regulations in connection with articles being either amended or more strictly enforced. Now you say the law is that a man's wages cannot be forfeited beyond a certain amount, that certain things have to be done, and a certain procedure observed. Now the Royal Commission when it was at Fremantle, in Western Australia, had the case of two ships, the "Sultan" and the "Charon," in which it was shown positively that the load line was not marked on the articles; in one case it was shown conclusively that the captain had signed his name first and not last; it was shown in the case of the " Charon " articles that they had not been completed in Singapore, where the crew was shipped, but in Fremantle, after the inquiry was made _y us. It frequently happens, bo it is said, that the articles are not read over to the crew so that they can understand them, and I do say this from having been present when an agreement was read over that no Englishman could understand, and as most of the men are foreigners, I am sure that they do not know in nine cases out of ten where they are going or what are the conditions of the voyage. Now the intentions of the Act are admirable. The idea is

18—A. sa.

that no man ought to be shipped or taken to any place unless he has a clear understanding where he is going and the conditions of the voyage. As a matter of fact, the seaman frequently does not know where he is going, and as to the conditions of his contract he knows nothing. There was a clause put in the " Charon's" Articles to this effect, that if one man was found smuggling opium, the whole of the crew was to be fined — a quite illegal thing, and against equity and common sense That was in the Articles, and what is more it was carried out. These men were Chinese and, of course, they did not know anything about it. Sib WILLIAM LYNE : What is the gist of what you want to make ? I want to know what is at the bottom of it. Hon. W. M. HUGHES : The kernel of it is this, that the regulations in respect of the Articles are very loosely carried out, that clauses are put in the Articles that are illegal, and what is more to the point they are enforced, that in very many cases where the Articles should be read out, they are not read out. When they are read, they are read in such a way that the men do not understand them. Sib WILLIAM LYNE : Do you want them explained? Hon. W. M. HUGHES : I want the law to be carried out. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : Then you want some one to carry the law out? Hon. W. M. HUGHES : The shipmaster is supposed to carry it out, but he does not do it, and I am pointing out to the Board of Trade the necessity for the enforcement of the law; lam pointing out that clauses are put in the Articles that are absolutely illegal, and what is more to the point, that they are enforced against the crew, and that it is one thing for the Act to provide that a certain thing shall be done, and quite another to insure that this thing is done. Mr. LLEWELLYN SMITH : I should like Mr. Howell of the Marine Department just to explain to the Conference what is the present state of the law and the practice about that? Mr. WALTER J. HOWELL : The position of this country is exceedingly simple. It is laid down in Section 114 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, and I think the third Sub-section contains the gist of the whole matter : —" The agreement with the crew shall "be so framed as to admit of such stipulations, to be "adopted at the will of the master and seamen in each " case, whether respecting the advance and allotment "of wages or otherwise, as are not contrary to law." Now that strikes the keynote of the whole thing. The one object of the Imperial law is to secure freedom of contract. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : We are against freedom of contract. Mr. WALTER J. HOWELL : Any stipulation in the contract that is not contrary to law is allowed. There you see the final judgment in the whole matter rests with the Courts of the country. I very much agree with a great deal that has been said with regard to the undesirable flexibility of the Articles. Some of them approach the modern bill of lading, and it is hardly possible to explain what all the stipulations mean. At the same time, I do not quite see how we can help it. So long as those stipulations are not contrary to law we cannot keep them out. Mr. BELCHER : The Board of Trade cannot ? Mr. WALTER J. HOWELL : Not if they are not contrary to law. Hon. W. M. HUGHES: You could set out in the Regulations what the law would not permit. Mr. WALTER J. HOWELL : Let me take the next step. The Superintendent of the Board of Trade has to look after the crew. He holds office as a sort of interpreter to see that the crew understand what they are doing; and if he has any donbt, it is his duty to point out that he thinks any stipulations are illegal. If he is actually advised not to allow them to go in, or if there has been a decision of the Court on the matter, he does not allow them to be inserted.