HOLD-UP OF A COAL STEAMER

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3138, 17 July 1917, Page 7

HOLD-UP OF A COAL STEAMER

WAS IT A SEDITIOUS STRIKE? FIREMEN FINED

• delivered -. rarday by Mr. AV. G. Rid- . , CMO in 11 i 1 umber of kIvT i. Pl on *' ,e wJ'ier Mgakuta wit !' l»fn W parties to a oeaitipjs strike nndc'r tho War "dogulauon? The men charged woro: James ma, hews, G: Anscombo, W. 11. Green, Robert. Hand. W. Major, Cliarlos M'Lean, v-P. Sime. and I'. Tifshali. - Tho arrived in Wellington on (tluno h. and ivas chartered by the I'apaCoal Company to take a cargo of coal from Grarmquth to Lytteltnn for a. ■ tinder the. control of tho Imperial authorities. Thn articles under which jhe raon were working expired on Juno jJB, and tho vessel was fixed to leave for :<rreymonth tho following day. The ncICUtjed .men signed off. (lie old articles, .'put refused to sign the new, because, ,«s itwn?ehown in the evidenoe, thero was ffenio friction between James Mathews, Jfino of tho defendants, and the ppokesSj™®" " >r . " 10 others, and tho chief steward KMCaw), the latter- being held 'to ;bl*me in all cases where the food was /jlint satisfactory. Instances i-ere given < ( Nvhen the meats served .to the erev were |iiniit for consumption, but in all in(Jstances when complaints lind been made ,'Oiher food vras substituted. After reviewing exhaustively the tiosijtjon. as governed by the War Kegulations fc. Magistrate declared that It iL i Uf lg m ent defendant . I James jJUathews,. whose case was first heard) jwas a person prejudiced against the stew'n? w 'tbonl -any effort to discover jnyhether the steward was actually tho gperson to blame, for t.he unsatisfactory if? ' 011 °f tilo food ho domanded that ■i™ company should discharge him. His (Worship staled that ho was not satisfrom the evidence placed before the ."Loiirt that, the steward was tho only Jperson to blame, and therefore the detniand for ,his dischargO' was unreasonable.

t It wjis submitted, on behalf of the f/ n -t*. when the firemen signed ptf tho old articles thoy were not emjploycd by tho comjymy and could not ;oe guilty of taking'part in a'Seditious Jtnke, and that the word "tendency" .in the; regpilatyon must be regarded as jjjaving the aa-joe meaning as "intontion." who action /of tho men, it was contended, did j,avo f or nini an irtarSjwnce Vith tlio shipping industry. A (third 'contention was that tho regulations referred to were intended to present; a, continuance of the "go-slow" jPOficy. Thp Magistrate' held that there a material difference between a etrikc, as defined in tho Industrial Con-ciliation-and Arbitration Act, 1908, and S3 seditious strike, as defined in paragraph 3 of tho "War Regulations of February 16, 1917. Tho definition of a eediitious striko under the regulations was jwuch wider than a ' strike under the Arbitration Act, and without the existence of tho regulation it would bo doubtSnl whether the attitude taken v,n by . -the firemen was illegal. The War Eeguflations were framed to meet cases that jcame into existence during tho time tho .uJmpiro was at war, and their main object was to prevent the interference in liny way with tho conduct, of essential , industries. These industries must "be carried on regardless of the temporary Enconvenience of individual members engaged in their conduct, more so if such (inconveniences and causes of complaint ■could be. - remedied by ■ constitutional •methods.. The War Regulations declare jthe shipping industry to be an,essential one; and seamen and firemen, fngaged j?n it were largely exempted from military ■service in order that ..the industry may ibe carried on efficiently. Under, such !regula,tions the fact that the defendants lhad left their employment when', they . Irefused to rejoin- the 6hip would not (help them. Tho offence was complete .as soon as, they had 'come to an agreement among .themselves-that .theyjwould iac.fc they- did ■at a later date, and tarried that agreement into effect. The (Magistrate declined, to accept the argument. that £ho action of the men had ffor its direct, object the removal of the (steward, and in that only indirectly effected the shipping industry, . The Effect of the men's action was. that a fcrew could not be found for the vessel, tend, she was prevented from failing at Ithe time, appointed to carry out. her Contract, and in that .way the industry an which she was. Engaged was directly Snterfered with.

' In recording . a conviction. ajainst tttathews, the Magistrate said >tho. defendant was liable (o a heavy fins, and Wso .to imprisonment.' He was not; satisfied that, Mathows and ,th,e other incn fully (appreciated their responsibilities (finder the War Regulations. Defendant jivnitld He fined -£fi, with'costs SI Is.

Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for fell the.defendants, mentioned the cases Bgainst the other men, and stated that fhe cvi.denco would be- similar to tl-at piveniii tho case against Mathews, and 3ie undcrstooH'that each would bo «m----jrictcd.

Bach of the other defendants was oon-H-ieted and fined £2, with"costs £1 Is. [His Worship stated that lie doubted .•whether the . men would havo taken lip ■the same attitude as Mathews,.who wns their leader.

.At the hearing Mr. P. S. K. Mac.issey Appeared for the Cro'irti.