THE SHIPPING TROUBLE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 8, 4 October 1917, Page 6

THE SHIPPING TROUBLE

ALLtiUCiU ottUlllUUo oIKUiEi

THE CHARGE AGAINST

W. T. YOUNG

DEFENDANT ALLEGES .CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST PRIME MINISTER

The Bearing of the charge against William Thomas Young, secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union, was . continued in tho Magistrate's Court yestoruity. Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., heard the case. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for The Crown, and Voting defended himself. When the Court resumed,- Young addressed the Court. He said: "'Before further evidence is called by tho Crown, I desire to draw your attention to tho publication in the "Evening Post" of yesterday, The Dominion of this morning, and the "Times" of this morning of a letter from Cue Primo Minister addressed.to me as secretary of the union, in which certain comments are made bearing very strongly on iiie proceedings before this Court. I oiily wibh to quote ono paragraph contained in the letter :— You are no doubt also awaTe that by ceasing employment while bound by an-industrial rgreenient volunmrily entered into by the union so ;;e----ceutly as March 9 last, tho union and each of the members concerned have committed a breach of the strike provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and dArbitration Act.

. "I submit that that is a comment on the proceedings before this Court. I may say that in the Court at 2 o'clock yesterday I received that letter fioin the Prime Minister in reference to that matter. It wns not disclwed to the Pn-ss representatives or to aoyone clm , , and was never, out of my possession, and it can only be assuusl that ils publication is entirely the act of the Prime Minister. I submit that its publication is an infringement of the case before tho Court, and that the Prime Minister is guilty of contempt of Court, an:l 1 am going to ask you, sir, to ;onsider lliat nintter, and to cn.'l upon the Prims Minister to answer the publication of that communication. I don't desire to make any comment on' it, but I wish to say that in my judgment the Prime Minister in causing the publication of that letter, has exceeded his functions_asx the chief citizen of this State, i I understand that the law is that when a case is pending no one is permitted to' publicly comment on the., proceedings. Whilst this publication , is not directly a comment, it is indirectly such, and the Prime Minister has set himself out in his communication to adjudicate on points of law in his assertion that the men I represent have committed a breach of tho strike regulations in tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I have yet to learn that the Prime Minister, or any other Minister of , tho Crown, is a judge of that matter. That is a matter entirely for this Court, and I submit that matter to you, sir, with all respectful diffidence." His Worship: It would.be idle to say that I have not read that letter. I have. This Court has no power to deal with contempt outside its own walls. That is a function which can alone bo exercised by the Supreme Court. 'There is no need to tell you it will not havo any effect on me. I hove come into contact with Ministers of the Crown before now. I havo always preserved my independence. John Massey Deck, of the Anchor Company, was then called by the Crown. He gave evidence respecting the conference between tho union representatives and tho owners' representatives on September i and 5. He said that Young said he would not go to the Arbitration Court about the matters in dispute, ond that they had "other means." Defendant: Has anyone refreshed vour memory since this Court opened yesterday? Witness: No.

Defendant: Have you had any consultation with the Crown Prosecutor this morning? Witness: Well, I have seen the Crown Prosecutor. . .Defendant: Did tho Crown Prosecutor put anything to you? Mr. Macassey: I object to the rrueF.tion. He cannot know what transpires between counsel and witness. — His Worship: That is. not so, Mr.Maeassey! He ■ could not mention _ what transpired between counsel and clien-t. ..■Defendant: Yon see, you have brought out things to-day which you did not mention when you Rave evidence yesterday. About a'Statement to a Detective. Defendant asked witness about a meetin? of tho employers on September 11, and inquired if any resolution was passed on that. occasion. Witness: I'don't remember. Defendant read an extract from a Wellington newspaper of September 12, saying that ii certain resolution had been passed at an employers' meeting on September 11. Witness said the report was wrong and that the Press 'could not be relied on. Defendant: W<>re the Pre6s represented at that meeting? Witness: No. Defendant; Tbeiv does it not seem that this paper got its information from some official? Otherwise, can you explain how it would get the information? •Witness: They get these things by hearsay. Defendant: Have you contradicted it? Witness: No. Defendant: You allow the public Pres9 to misrepresent you, and yon never take the trouble to set things right. Witness: We take no notice of these things. Defendant: Will you swear that at that meeting a resolution was not passed that the men should be paid off? Witness: I don't think there was. . Defendant: Will you swear there was not? • - Witness: Yes. Defendant: Were men paid off on the following day? Witness: Yes. Defendant: Who gave notice? Did the men give the shipowners notice, or did the owners give notice to the men? Witness entered upon an explanation. Defendant: That is not an answer to the question! Witness again began an explanation. Nis Worship: .Answer the question first and explain afterwards. Witness: What is the question? Defendant: Did the shipowners give the men notice? Witness: Yes.

laughter from the crowd. His Worships, These proceedings are not going to be accompanied by disorder. If you wish to remain hero you must behave yourselves. I am not going to have these proceedings interruipted by loud tijughtor or any other noise. . AVitnbss said the mosquito fleet brought cheo=e, coal, wool, and hemp Wcllinglpn, tended tho liners, etc. Tin , export of some of these .products had been interfered with. Hemp was badly needed at Home just now. Robert .lohn Ray, master of the Jfikau', stated that, some of his men refused to go to sea unless there were two men in a watch, and they said they were acting under instructions from the ITxecutive Council of the Seamen's Union. Ernest Edward Williams, called by the prosecution, denied having made a certain statement to Detective Carney. Detective Carney was then, (-ailed. Be said that Williams had slated to him that Howell had read to tho men on hie ship a mandate that they were to .refuse to take the ship to sea unless there were two men on 'watch, and had said that that was the Executive Council's /l«i- : sinii. Witness had snid (o Williams: "This is no good to you, bein? tied up here!"— -Williams hid said, "The union liuve got us into and they can get us out of it." That closed die case for Hie Crown. ■Defendant said (hat he wished to call flie\ Hon. G. W. Russell, Minister of Marino, and the Court adjourned for Mr. Russell to be communicated with. Mr. Russell did not come, and His "Worship said he could not compel him tn as ho was free from judicial process. Further, as a Minister of tho Crown he

would refuse to give official information. Defendant: Do I .understand that Jio claims Parliamentary privilege? His Worship: I don't know. lam only stating the position. Defendant: There was only one point I wanted to question him on.

The Case For the Defendant. Defendant, addressing the Court said it would be contended that no strike existed and that if a breach of the War Regulations had been committed it was a seditious lock-out. One could not compliment the Crown on the case it put forward. It was flimsy. Ho could not understand why the Crown hnd wasted the timo of the Court with tho cases. One was tempted to ask: "Is this prose'cution, or is this persecution?" One could not blame tho Court or the Crown Prosecutor; both had essential functions, and he had no quarrel ivith those functions. It seemed to him that the political authorities had set themselves out' to persecute the representatives of the men who were fighting the war and would win it. Some applause. His Worship: There must be no ap51ause. It is not allowed in a.Court of iistice. Defendant added that the political authorities did not look into the affairs of the employers' organisations. He was opposed in principle to tho political authorities of the day, so persecution of himself was easily understood. None had done better than the seamen in this war, and it was a tribute to them that not a transport, troopship, or hospital ship had boen delayed in its departure from this country. Up till June last two men\ in ft watch wtxe worked, but later one man only was put on watch. From June 1 to the time the trouble occurred, the union was postered with threats, and it was only by the exercise of tact that the trouble was staved off. The Crown had failed to prove that tho men discontinued their employment. To establish that there had. been a strike it was necessary to prove that the men had left their employment - and had made some demands on their employers. In this case it was shown that the employers discharged the men. For refusal to take the ships to sea tho men were liable under the shipping laws/ and why were they not prosecuted? If the matter had been brought before the Court it could have been quickly settled, and. ihe ships would have gone to sea '■ a?ain. As a practical seaman, ho said -that no ship was safe at sea with only one man on patch. Had he been -seafaring now ho would have taken up exactly the same attitude as the men had. Why were the men not prosecuted for refusing to go to sea? Because the employers wished to have the men brought under the War 'Regulations. The regulations respecting a seditious lock-out were, practically the same as 'those pertaining to a' seditious strike. The cause'of the vessels lying up at the present time was duo to the employers and their lock of tact for handling a question when it arose. At no time had any instructions been civen not to take a shin to sea with less than two men in a watch, and'it was worthv of note that while ships were involved in Wellington, none were involved in Auckland. It was clear that had the union given instructions in Wellington th'e instructions would have been given in Auckland also. The police had taken the unTon minute-bnok, and the Crown, beinpr unable to find any evidence which would incriminate the union or the executive, bad taken personal proceedings. Jf Howell had done what the Crown as'serted, he would have been liable Lo dismissal from the union. Before leaving for Auckland, jnst prior to the trouble, he had given Howell a document to communicate to the men on the ehips, and it seemed that some of them had it, and that the lftieun'derstanding had spread. The union had never considered the question of two men in a .watch.. As to the evinnce nddnced by the Crown to the effect that ho had declined to refer matters in dispute to the Court of Arbitration, Ko said that what he declined to ■ do was to go to We Court for an interpretation. Whar. the union intended to do was to proceed against The shipowners for breach of agreement, so as to pet an order of tho Court. On March 29, in tracing niatlers before the Minister of Marine, he ' incidentally rer/iarked that «otnc of the vessels were sailing with one man in, a deck-watch, and that some of tho vessels were licensed to carry passengers. The Minister expressed surprise at this, took a note of it, and said he xroTild cause inquiries to be mnde, with «. view, to effecting a remedy. That was what he wanted to asl& th'e Minister ■ about if the- Minister had como to the Court. Defendant asked if the evidonce ho gavo in the case against Howell on (ho previous day could be put in in this case, but Hie Crown objected. Defendant called ' Gpnrjie Thomas a member of tho Executive 1 Council of the Seamen's tfnion, who said that the question of the tinmber of men in a deck-wntch wns never raised at the session rf the I'lxocutivn Council in August. The men had come out on their own account, and the union had not considered the matter him , * the trouble arose. ■The defendant went info the witnessbox, -ind said he wished to repeat, in this case the evidence given by him in Howell's case. - 1 Ooss-pxareined by 31V. Mncass»v, he said that while in Auckland he did not pndeavmir to'get the men on the coastal bo»ts thero to come out. Judgment is to bo given this morning.