THE SHIPPING TROUBLE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 7, 3 October 1917, Page 6

THE SHIPPING TROUBLE

PROSECUTIONS BY THE . CROWN

INCITEMENT TO SEDITIOUS STRIKE

ALLEGED

UNION OFFICER CONVICTED

W, T. YOUNG'S CASE PROCEEDING

:.. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, f- -.Frederick Charles Howell,' assistant s£c- !...-• ...retary of the Wellington. Local Federated I .: Seamen's Union, and William Thomas !,.•> Young, secretary of the Federated Seai- men's Union, were charged with having ';,-"-': incited a seditious etrike. The eases ;■■ -,-yere connected with" the present trouble '■- 'in the coastal trading vessels. Howell i [■■ ' and Young were charged separately that : \ they did incite a' seditious strike—a ;■■; strike ■of eeanien engaged on. coastal ;• steamers ' plying from tho port, of Wel- :> lington—which strike was seditious in a .that it had a tendency to interfere with ;' the effeotive conduct of the shipping inh. dustry, being'an industry declared by ;.,' the Goveraor-General-in-Council'Mi April , 17,. 1917, under the War Regulations Act :]■'.;.'■ and ■■its amendments to be an industry ;■'. essential for the public welfare. Howell iv. .and Young were'also jointly charged •■ that they did conspire with other cerv" tain persons unknown to the informant ■U'.'.fo procure a seditious strike. i ■■■•'- Mr. 6. E. M'Carthy, S.M., heard the :'.-.- oases.. Mr. P..S; KMacassey represented f "the Crown, Howell was defended by Mr. \ v H. F. O'Leary,'and Young defended him. :'.'• self : There were many interested jvuditoi'9 '.present.. . '■.'■■■ ; :.9 The case' against Howell was taken ;£ : firSt.'■:•:'■■' ..■-■■■-■'.. ' i;? 1 In his opening address Mr. ' Macassey '■'•eaid'theoharge was laid under the War ;:-■ Regulations. In March of this year an !-: -agreement, was arrived at between the K;-.-federated Seamen's Union and the ship-. IV 'owners. < By this agreement the watch .-.•was', changed from 12 hours to 8 hours, ':' and at that time it was admitted by -■Young, that it was only necessary to ':■ have one man on deok with an officer V, daring a watch. Later on questions ;-. arose as to the interpretation of the t: agreement, and a conference was held on •. .September 4 and 5 between the vepresen. •-tatives of the union, and tho represen- ■' tatiyes of the shipowners. The quesj> tipn of an extra deck hand on watch '• ;■' "was.:not .raised at the , , conference. :' Toung was asked if he would, take the ill matter to the Arbitration Court, and he ■"' declined, saying that he would not bo. ;. bound by the Court and that they would 'settle the matter in their own v:ay, as ? ' they had other means of gaining their i vends. • Then the strike of the mosquito •''■■' fleet occurred. Howell went down to the Vljoats and told the men they were i.ot s to go to sea unless there were two men i .von the deck watch. This question of ■'.' the deck watch was irrelevant to the, ! /charge. Even if the men had had a just (which they had not) they %: had no right to go but on etrike in war 'time' The men themselves had openly = ; -'stated that they did not want to strike I'-,"■ and that they were quite satisfied wxi :■ their, conditions. The real effect of the conditions was that instead 'of £ working' 12 hours'a day they beenvcrk- ■ .ing 8 hours. They had been earning £20 :Ho .£25 per month. - ' P' Loud laughter from the crowd at the i 5 a His Worship: Now, look.here! You are '■' in a Court o! Justice, and these ebuih- " tions will not be allowed. If ■it occurs il again- every.one of you will be cleared >/--'out. I wish, you to understand that. ;.■■; The prosecution then proceeded to call ;'-. evidence. ; ' ■ . ' . . •

Evidence About the Conference,

P.- John Maesey Deck, shipping manager !■ for the Anchor Steamship Ooinpauy' and '■' the Patea •• Farmers' steamer Waverley, .•"■"'was.called to give evidence. Hβ said •"that on. September i and 5 there was a ; conference between union and owner 5i 'representatives,.but no mention was made '-■of the matter of-the number of men in I 'the, watches.' It .was suggested that the. -"'matters in dispute should be referred to the Court of Arbitration, but Young «- i fused to have anything to do with the ■ Court, saying,- they would not' recognise :' its-decision, and that they had other V: ' means. < This was said in such a way :', that trouble was anticipated. • ' Mr. Macassey: That was the end of the ' conference. ~ ~ . , (-Witness: No; we Pegged lim to.ie--1 consider the matter. However, the sea-. j- men's representatives got up to leave. ; I called out to Mr. Young as he was '• inearly out of the room that if there S'-were any cases of hardship m v the mat-■;-ter of the working of the agreement toe ■shipowners would be only too glad to 'look"into them. He scorned the ofler, - and- shouted back: "You look into i,ie agreement." I followed into the ante-' i room and got hold of Mr. Donovan. '■ ■ Mr. Macassey: But you did not get iV them'to'agree to the Arbitration Court? !.--.-Witness: No.. Three.day 3 later we got : : : iiotice.that,the men. were refusing duty. ? The. trouble started on the Blenheim and • the Kaitoa.and now 25-are held up. ;-.' Mi. O'Leary: You were' also chairman t"'of-the Wellington branbh. of the Shrp- ;. owners' Federation? V. ..',-

: '" Witness: Yes. ' , Mr O'Leary': The question of two men "in a watch was not .provided for m the "'agreement"which, came into force on tjrune:l?.... : v .••■■■ '.■." '■■'■-■'■■■'Witness: No. - " : . ■-,'.. • H Mr 'O'Leary-.From the time the agreer'ment came into force there was .dissatisfaction with its carrying out? -. .■ ' ;-.',. Witness: Nothing came betore the,ledf- 6 -Mr: 6'Leary: Don't you know, that on i.'june 13 the union issued a pamphlet to fvits members? . £'-"■ Witness: Yes.- ' . . ... ; -Mr O'Leary: There is no assertion v there that there should be two men in S'a watch. It says just-the contrary. r ~- .Witnees: It leaves it open. . i Mr.-O'Leary: Did your federation issue '.V pamphlet as to what interpretation J the ownore put on the agreement? Witness: No. . ■ <m Mr.. O'Leary: Did. they issue lnstruc- '■ tions in any form? . 1 Witness: No. f • Mr. O'Leary: Did the individual own- ■: ers do" so?

'-Witness: ..Yes. . ' . , ■-.. , . ' 'Mr O'Leary: Then it w only a Blight I 'difference. The shipowners issued in- ; structiqns individually; not through the "federation.. V Witness:, Yes. . _ ■ ■ ■ ■ Mr. O'Leary: Have you a copy of your : instructions?' ' '■■ Witness: I issued them verbally. "Mr. O'Leary: To what effect? ; Witness: That we could use one man ;in a watch. • "•' Mr O'Leajy: Then it was not even •pretended: at this time by the union that they could work two inen in a Macassey said these matters were I reply to that by'saying •that you opened the matter yourself. I,Who got details from Mr. Deck about .•■this agreement? ' - '■ His Worship said that a lot of the cvi'dence he had taken was irrelevant, and ! iie did not intend to.take nolice of it. The questions were? -Was there a seditious strike? And did the defendant in- '' Mr. O'Leary: Then I shall proceed to inuestion Mr. Deck as to what Mr. Young Baidi Do you consider that irrelevant? ; Hi's Worship: No. ! J[r. O'Leary: Do you remember the last words of Mr. Young iu refusing to 'submit the matter to the Arbitration ; Court? . ■ . '„■-., '.■' Witness: He said they would not have anything to do with the. Court, would -not accept its decision, and had other 'means. - . ■ 1 .Mr.- O'Leary: Were you aware that some days previously 'the union had decided to prosecute you for breach of 'the- award? > Witness: No. ' ' Mr. O'Leary: Might not that have -.been the-"other means?" ■

i : : ■•,.. / "Other Means." ' '■■■' Peter A. Petersen, master mariner, representing RTchanhon and Co., of Nαitiier, was called. Ho said the company itrmied tlie vessels Bipp.le, Mako, Awa-

hou, Kaliu, Koiitunui, Kiritona, Kuru, Fanny, and others. Witness 6aid ho was present at thb conference above mentioned, and that Young was asked to take the matter to the Arbitration Court. Young said he would do nothing of the kind. He was then asked if he would take it to fiie Court along with the owners' federation. His Worship: What did lie Bay Witness: He said 'No.' We said then that we would have to take it to the Arbitration Court, and Mr. Young said: 'We, do not want to have anything to do with the Arbitration Court.' , Mr. Young said to the representatives of the shipowners: 'Mind you, you are not going to have it all your own way. You know we have other means to fix you up.'" Mr. O'Leary: At this meeting was Mr. Howell present? Witness: No. Mr. O'Leary: But you renlly met representatives from the-whole of New Zealand ? Witness: Yes.. Mr. O'Leary: And there was nothing simultaneous in other places with tho action in Wellington? Witness: No. William Rogers, manager of the Anchor Shipping Company, Nelson, was the next witness. Mr. Macassey: What boats of yours are , held w>? ■• • ' Witness: The Nik.™, the Kaitoa, and the Alexander in Wellington, and the Waimea and the Kennedy at Nelson. . Mr. Maeassey: When did they become held up? ■ ■ Witness: On September 7 we got i:nti=e that the boats in Wellington would be held np—that the men had refused to go to sea. Subsequently, when the Waimea and the, Kennedy were at Wanganui, the men gave notice. Witness deposed as to Young refusing to go to the Arbitration Court. ]Te said there'-hacl been conferences at Parliament Buildings since the had been laid up. * ■ . Sir. O'Leary: You know that at.the conference on September I and 5 the union contended that the shipowners had broken the agreement? Witness: Yes. Mr. O'Leary: You know also that the union waited on the Minister of Marine later? ; ; Mr. Macassey: I object to this! Mr. O'Leary: You seem to object to everything you do not want to ask yourself. Witness added that there had been a deadlock ever since. '. "There's Trouble Brewing, Captain." Edward John Harvey, captain of the iQueen of the ,- South, a vessel owned by Levin and Co., stated that on September 7 the.steamer was.loaded with general cargo for Foxton. When he went'aboard at 10 o'clock the natchman, Gustavson, said: "There's trouble brewing/captain." Later two men approached him. Mr. Maeassey: What did they say? Witness: That they had got notice from their seoretary. ■ Mr. O'Leary said this was hearsay evidence and therefore irrelevant. . Mr. Maeassey said that under ,tho War Regulations this evidence was admissible, Moreover, it'was admissible in the ordifr ary way in order to let the Court ge( at the bottom of things. His Worship: The charge is one of inciting a seditious strike. There was a dispute between masters and 'men oier the working of the boats. This led to a conference. A suggestion was made to refer.the matter to the Arbitration Court, and the representatives of

the men appear to have refused this, and are said to have remarked, "Wβ ihave other means." Following on that the ships "went out." ■ Now, what the men said to their employers is strictly legal evidence in a seditious strike case. I will take a note of Mr. O'Leary's objection. Mr. 'Macassey (to witness): Then who were the men? .. Witness: Gustavson and Axel Petersen. .Mr. Macassey: What'did they say? (Witness: That they had instructions not to go to sea unless they had two men in a watch. Mr. Macassey: What did you say? Witness:.'l 6aid, "You know, you are breaking the law. You have not given-24 hours' notice." - ' ; Mr. Macassey: What followed? Witness: They said they had not thought of that, and that they would go and see the secretary right away. Mr. Macassey: Did they go? Witness: One went, and he returned in about three minutes and said that they had absolute orders not to go to sea unless th'ere were two men in a watch. : Witness said he had seen a statement ■which one King had signed. It ran:.. William King states that between 10 a:m. and 11 a.m. on 7/9/17 the assistant secretary of the Seamen's Union—Howell—came into the fore--1 castle of the Queen of the South. Petersen and I were in the forecastle, and Howell told us we were not to go ■ to sea without two men on a watch. I understood that was the. union in- ■ structions. ' _ (Signed) W. KING, Frank William Berry, boatswain on the Queen of the South on September 7, deposed that he 'had gone to the Seamen's Union office and could not get any information. Mr. Macassey: Did you know before you went that there was. trouble on the boats ? Witness: No. . Mr. Macaeeey:-I ask Your Worship to take a note of that. . Mr. Macassey: Did you or did you not know there was trouble? .You made a statement to Detective Carney. Witness: I heard about two men an a Mr. Macassey: Well, why did you say you did not know? Mr O'Leary: I submit that if Mr. Macassey is goinjr to cross-examine : his own -witness in this manner he should have him declared a hostile witness. A "Statement" to a Detective. Mr. Macassey , ' read the following statement, said to have been given to' Detective Carney by the witness:— I am a member of the Seamen's Union, but the matter in dispute did ' not affect me, but being a member of th'e union I will have to stick to the ■union,- and therefore I went to the Seamen's Union office on-September 7 and saw Howell, the assistant eec•retary, and asked Howell for the union's instructions. Howell said we were not to take to 6ea unless there were two men in. a watch. Mr. Macassey: Now, I ask you on your oath: Did you make that statement to Detective Carney? Witness: I cannot remember , saying that. • , i ii , Mr. Macassey: You won't deny that you. made it? Witness: No. Mr. Macassey: If Detective Carney swears on oath you did, will you deny it? Witness: I will have to if I cannot remember. Mr. Maeassey: Tren you deny making it? , . T Witness: I do not remember saying 1 -got instructions from Howell not to take the ship to sea. . .... Sir. Macassey: You will contradict that? Witness: Yes. Mr. Macassey: By whom were the instructions given not to take the ships to sea? •> Witness: I do not know that any were given. . , . Mr. Macassey: When did you first hear that the boats were to be held up? Witness: At- 3 o'clock on the Friday, when the captain gave orders to let go the lines, and the men said they would not go unless they got two men in a watch. Witness said, also, reaarding the "statement" . to Detective Carney, that all he thought he gave the detective was his name. Alexander .Tames Jackson, chief l officer of (he Huia, said he saw Howell on the Huia on the morning of September 7 talking (o three sailors. Mr. Macassey: When did you first know there was to be trouble? AVitness: On the Friday afternoon a lamp-trimmer said the Aip would not sail unless there were two men in a watch. Witno=s said that Breen. one of the crew, had said (hat he had instructions not to sail unless there were two men in a watch. Mr. Macassey: Did he say where he got his instructions? ' Witness: No. . Mr. Miici'ssey: Where (Kd instructions come from? Witness: I don't know ? I Mr. Macaesey asked a .question about a

I circular, and Mr. O'Leary objected on the ground that it was a leading question. Mr. O'Lenry added {hat the I Crown was conducting the case unfairly. Apparently the Crown had called just what evidence it liked, and thought it was going to get it out as it liked — j thought it could do as it liked. As | representing the defendant, who was chiefly concerned in the case, Mr. O'Leary asked the Court to stop this method of conducting the case, and to insist on fairness. , Tho question was not allowed. Mr. O'Leary: How long was.tho vessel held up? Witness: Four days. ". Mr. O'Leary: How did you get over the difficulty? Witness; By patting two men in a watch. "By Order of the Seamen's Union." John Eliys Owen, captain of tho Huia, and at the time of the trouble chief officer of tho Blenheim', stated that on Septomber 7 he saw Howell on the Blenheim. Later on the lamp-trimmer came to witness and said that tho ship was not to go to sen unless there wero two men in a watch. Mr. Macdssey; Did he say where he was lold that? Witness: Orders from the union, ho said. ■' ■ . James Jamieson, master of the Defender, said that on September 8, in the afternoon, five able seamen came to him and said they would not go to sea unices two men were put in each watch. An entry, was made in the log, and then occurred the following, which Miller, one of Hie seamen, sijfned:— This has been read over to the crew and they have replied that they will not proceed to sea without two men in each watch, by order of the Seamen's Union, . Hans Miller, a sailor on the Defender, stated: "I don't reckon myself a ships n't to go to sea with only one man in i j aMr. O'Leary: You say it is unsafe to sail on. these small boats with only one mnn in a watch P ' Witness: As far, as our ship is conMr. Ci'Leary: That was your opinion at the-time, and it was on that you acted? Witness: Yes. Mr O'Leary: Do you 6wear definitely you got no instructions from the union to refuse to go? Witness: I do. Mr. O'Leary: What sort of a scholar are you?- . Witness: Pretty fair, I think. Mr. O'Leary: Did you realise when you signed that statement that it said by order of the union"? Witness: I did. Mr. O'Leary. Then, why did you make it? , Witness: I made it on my own account. It does not interfere with the union at all. We are all members of the one union. , ~ Mr. O'Leary :rYon thought at the tnno you wero entitled to do that? Witness: Yes. . V William Arthur Wildman, captain of the Knitoa, said that some of tho crew interviewed him, and the spokesman, Fowler, said they would not let go,the lines unless there were two nveji in a watch. . Mr. Maeassey. Did he say where he got the orders? Witness: He said he received the ordere from the executive of the Seamen s Union. Mr/ Macassey: Did the boat sail? Witness: No. Mr. Maeassey: Is she still tied up?

Witness: Yes. George B. Brown, chief officer of the Waverley, said he saw Howell on the boat on tho Friday. The boat was to have sailed tliat day, but did not, and was still tied up.

Magistrate Requires Defence to Answer the Case, No further evidence was offered by the prosecutor, and Mr. O'Leary addressed the Court. , The charge, he said, was that Howell'had incited a seditious strike—a serious charge, one which, if he was found guilty of it, could be dealt with by a fine of .£IOO or any term of imprisonment up to twelve months. It was a highly penal charge. No case whatever had been made out on legal evidence or on safe evidence on lshich Howell could bo convicted on this particular charge. Assuming for a moment that the action of the men was a seditious strike under the War Regulations (and it was difficult to contend otherwise because of the very wido scope of those regulations), for Howell to be guiltv he must have incited scores of men. Not one man had been brought forward who had sworii that Howell or anyone' else incited him. Was it safe to convict. Howell of a seditious strike on tfie statements of officers who said what tlfey had been told by some men who had not been called? Two men who were called were treated, as hostile witnesses, and they stated on oath that they received no instructions. The Crown had started on a fishing excursion, hoping to get some definite evidence, but the expedition had failed. TheTe was nothing sinister in the fact that Howell was seen on the boats. There was no legal evidence at all against Howell, and tlio case should be dismissed. His Worship: "The representatives of the masters and the representatives of th'e workmen met in conference on September I and 5, and they failed, to come to any' agreement. Suggestions were made that the matter should be referred to fhe Arbitration Court. To this, the representatives of the union replied that they would not take any question before the Court, and that they would take other mean's. Howell was. not present at that conference. On September 7or 8 n number of ships were ready to sail, and the seamen with one accord Tβfuewl to soil, and they all gave a stock excuse. Howpll was on these ships on those days, and had seen the men shortly "Before they saw their captains." It was said that no one heard what Howell said to the- men, and that it was a common practice (as everyone knew it was) for the officials of the union to visit the seamen, but the Court could not overlook the fact that immediately prior to several of the crews seeing their captains they had been seen by Howell, and they all gave thp same excuse for not going fo sea. The Court was entitled to draw the inference that it was Howell who incited these seamen. When there whs legal evidence, evidence that was not strictly legal might be used in corroboraiion. The only conclusion the Court could come to was that on the case as at 'present presented to Hip. Court there was a case to answer. Reference was made to the two seamen who snid they had no instructions from the union. All he had to say about the evidence of those two men was that it was not convincing.

Evidence by W. T. Young. Mr. O'Leary called William Thomas Young; general secretary of the Seamen's Union, who said that in March last on agreement between the union and the shipowners was entered into, and on June 1 clauses relating'to eight hours a. day came into effect. Since the agreement came into operation matters between the ships crews and the owners had occasioned conferences. The working of the agreement was in dispute, and the owners were asked to meet the union representatives to discuss these matters with the object of arriving at an agreement on the points-. Mr. O'Leary: Was there, a conference? Witness: The shipowners intimated that they were making inquiries in Australia . . Mr. Macasscy objected to tins evidence, and it was disallowed. Witness said that the owners declined a conference, but ultimately agreed to appoint a sub-committee of four of their ■number to meet the union representatives. The owners also declined to agree to a chairman. The representatives of tho union were Messrs. Donovan. Barr, Burn, and witness. The owners were represented by Messrs. Deck, Peterson, Hammond, and another. Deck had stated in evidence that when witness was leaving the conference on September 5 Deck said that nny cases of hardship would be considered. As 'n fnct. that remark was made on the afternoon of September 4, ,iti(l had reference to n matter of hours. Witness replied that they did not require the shipowners to lonic into cases of hardship, but desired the carrying nut of the agreement. On the second day of tho conference, Sentember 5. they met at 2.30 p.m;, and the owners immediately intimated their disagreement wUli the iiiiio' , '" interpretation, ami the union representatives Raid it would be futile to wast" further time in discussion, and then withdrew.

Mr. O'Leary: Was a request made- to submit tho matter to tlie Arbitration Court? Witness; Tes. Mr. O'Leary: Was it agreed to? Witness: No. Mr. O'Leary: Do you remember saying you had other means of dealing with the matter ? Witness: Yes; words to that effect. Mr, O'Leary: Will you state what you were referring to? Witness: Tho shipowners had suggested that we should apply to the Court for an interpretation of these points. We declined to entertain that. They then suggested that, we should agree to a joint application with them for an interpretation, mid we also declined Hint. "I remarked that we would have nothing to do with the Court."' This remark referred to the question of interpretation. Since then the. Labour Department had approached the unifln to agree to the interpretation, and they still refused. Tlie object in refusing to agree to nn application for interpretation was that such was not an onW of conrt. What was meant by "other means" was that they intended to prosecute tho shipowners for breach of agreement. A direction to that effect wa? Riven by the session of fie Executive Council on August 21. The conference was verv brief n-i t'if second dnv, midincf fit 2.50 p.m. He did not think the miestion of tiro men in a watch was mentioned. The rlny following the conference witness left Wellimjton for Auckland, and he returned to Wellington on September 12. Between the rising of the conference on SeotemWγ 5 and his departure for Auckland on September fi there was no meeting of the union or of the executive. His visit to Auckland had nothing to do with the question of two men in a watch. It had refnrenc to a Diinetlin matter. Mr. Macnssey: Did you give Howell any instructions before you left for Auck- i Witness: Tes, before leaving I instructed Mr. Hmrell Hint ho iras to advise the members of the result of the conference ■with the shipowners, and in order that he might do that I pave him a copy of the matters in dispute. This copy embodied the points and the views of the union on each. Mr. O'Leary: Wns there anything about two men in a watch? Witness: As far as tlie union is concerned'it never considered the -mnltoi , nt all. No instructions werf considered lw me. and I had no authority to give such instructions. Mr. O'Leary: W'mt was the first you k'n p w of any, trouble? Witness: On Sentember 8 T read a paragranh in the Auckland paper. Mr. Macassev: You i<r» the cone'-M ?pcretnw of tli» Federated Seamen's Union? Witness: Yes. Mr. Macassev: Ypy nre the head and front of thn , 'organisation? Witness: Well, T am the chief inkslinger, I suppose, but Hie liead and front of the union is the executive. _^ Mr. Macassey: Tou ore by far the ftost prominent person in the council? Witness: I would not say that. ■ Mr. Macassey: You were the most prominent speaker for the union at the conference? . Witness: Yes; 1 suppose I was. 11 Sγ. Macassey: Why did you not agree to go to the Arbitration Court? Witness: We did, but not for interpreter.' Macassey: Why not lor interpretation? a Witness: Because interpretation is not binding; it is a mere expression of opinion. Mr. Macassey: Did you say you would not be bound by the Court? Witness: No; we are bound by it now. Laughter at the back. His Worship: Now, you must slop or you will go out. You are in a Court of Justice, and you must remember that there can be no expression of opinion except from the Bench, tho Bar, or the witness in the box. Mr. O'Leary: Mr. Howell had no instructions to go down to the boats and bring the men out? Witness: No; it would have been more than his position with tho union was worth to do so. Mr. Macassey produced a typewritten sheet of "instructions to the men on tho boats" (as ho called it). Witness said it was not officially propored by the union. Mr. Macassey,: When you wore in Auckland did you have any communication with Howell regarding this strike? Witness: This strike? Mr. Macassey: Yes, strike! What would you call it? Witness: I would call it a purebred lock-out. Or a seditious lock-out. Mr. Macassey: Have you made any attempt to get these men to go back? Witness: No. Mr. Macassey: Why? Don't you consider it your duty? Witness: No, because I did not bring them out. Witness added that he believed there was a genuine misunderstanding on the part of the men as to the communication from Howell. The union officials had had great difficulty in keeping tho men at. work since June 1. That closed tho evidence in Howell's case. The Court Convicts Howell. His Worship: The evidence of the last witness is very plain on the subject that witness has notjiad anything to do with the alleged strike,' and also as to tho union having had nothing to do with the strike. It leaves untouched, however, the position of tho defendant. It lets that rest where it is. J am bound to assume in this case that first of all there was a strike, and that the defendant incited certain crows to strike. I will have to enter a conviction. I will defer saying what I will do until I hear the other case.