SEDITIOUS STRIKE CASES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 9, 5 October 1917, Page 6

SEDITIOUS STRIKE CASES

YOUNG CONVICTED "TOOK A PART,'BUT KEPT IN THE BACKGROUND "

BOTH SECRETARIES SENTENCED

THREE MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, William Thomas Young, secretary of tho Seamen's Federation, and Frederick Charles Jlowell. secretary of the Wellington Seamen's Union, were sentenced to three months' imprisonment respecting charges of their having incited a seditious strike. The cases, of course, have reference to the hold-up of tho mosquito licet. On tho first day of the cases Howell had been convicted, and on -Wednesday evening Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., reserved judgment in Young's case. That judgment was delivered yesterday as under:— - "This information is laid under regulations made under the AVar Kegulations Act, 1914, and its several amendments. The regulations relied on are those made on FebruaTv 16, 1917, which, inter alia; provide that no persons shall be party to a seditious strike or a seditious lockout, or shall incite, encourage, or procure ,111 V such striko or lock-out. or tho continuance thereof. Seditious strike is. inter alia, defined as any strike or Transaction in the nature of a strike or combination, agreement, common understanding, or concerted action on the part of any workers which is intended or has a tendency to interference with (d). the manufacture, production, output, supply, delivery, or carriage of goods or articles in, or in connection with, any industry declared by the Governor-General-in-Coun-cil, pursuant to tho foregoing provisions of these regulations, to be essential for.tho public welfare, or otherwise to interfere, with the effective conduct -of any such industry. The Governor-Genernl-in-Coun-cil on April 17, 1917, by publication, in the general Government Gazette, declared the shipping industry to be an essential industry to the public welfare. "The facts are there, are .a number of smajl steamers plying from tho Port of Wellington to other ports in the Dominion. The steamers are owned by different firms, persons, and companies, and are locally known as the njosquito fleet. The crews of these vessels aremembers of the seamen's unions, local and federated. From June 1, 1017, to September 7 of the same year, crews ot these vessels had put to sea with one man in a watch. This practice was during this period the cause of dissatisfaction amongst the men, although it. had been sanctioned by the Federated Union. On September i and 5, 1917, conferences were held between representatives of the owners and the men respectively. At these conferences several subjects of dispute came up' for discussion. The owners' representatives suggested that the men should seek an interpretation from the Arbitration Court. This offer the representatives of the men refused. The owners' representatives then suggested that both owners and crews should jointly seek an interpretation. This offer the representatives of the men refused. The owners' representatives then said they would themselves seek an Interpretation. To this tho defendant, a representative of the men, and general secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union oMTew Zealand (Registered), said the owners' representatives would not have it all their own wav. and that thw (the representatives of the men) would adopt other means of getting a settlement. At this conference the alleged grievanco as to putting to sea with ono man in a watch was not mentioned; much less discussed. On September 6, 1917, the defendant left for Auckland and did not return till September 13, at 12.15 p.m. On September 7, 1917, one Howell, the assistant secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union, was seen'on at least three of the steamers forming part of the mosquito fleet,, talking to members of tho tow. Almost immediately afterwards memtfers of the crew waited on the captain ind "officers and said they had been instructed by the Seamen's Union and its executive not to put to sea unless with two men in a watch. The request was refused br the owners. Hie crews in nearly all the fleet thereupon refused to put to sea except that condition were conceded. By September 20 nil except two v or three of the ships, the owners of which had conceded the disputed condition, were laid up owing to the refusal of the crews to put to sea. To a member of the Kotare was delivered a circular advising members of the union not to put to sea with one man in a watch. This circular contains reference to matters discussed at the conferences of September 4 and 5, and set out in a schedule of points of dispute, drawn up by the defendant. The defendant denies this circular emanated from his union. I do not believe him. The objection to receiving this evidence is tlfat the men to whom the circular was given were not called. This objection is got over by section 3 of the amending Act of 1915. Moreover, the circular itself contains internal evidence-'of having emanated from the defendant. The men, owing to their continual refusal to put to sea for the reason already detailed, were paid off under instructions from the owners. "The following contentions .were raised for the defence:— 'W That the defendant is not a worker, and is incompetent therefore to he party to or incite a strike. "(2) No provision is made by the regulations for a strike in a shipping industry. . "(3) That assuming a strike can take place in that industry no strike has been proved, but a seditious lock-out. , "(4) That neither the defendant nor the union of which he is secretary has taken part in any strike. "As to contention- (1), paragraph 2 of the regulations made on February 16, 1917, applies to any person, not merely a worker. "Contention (2) does not avail becansft tho shipping industry has itself been declared an essentiul industry by Order-in-Council. "As to contention (3) defendant confended that the owners were confined to t?ie remedy udor section 135 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908. This is not so. That remedy is cnffllitative on the common law remedy. On the defendant's own showing, the owners, in refusing to comply with the demand for two men in a watch, were acting in accordance with their industrial agreement with the men's unfbn. When, therefore, the men refused to put to sea unless their demands were complied with fliey disobeyed a lawful command, anft were liable to summary'dismissal. This aspect of the matter negatives any contention bs to a 'oekout,

"£s to the fourth contention, it is true defendant was not, like Howell, seen on any of the vessels. Indeed, ho had left for Auckland before the striko was announced. It. is clear, however, it had been determined on immediately after the conclusion of the- conference ot September 5. It affected vessels in tho ports of Wellington, Wanganui, Nelson, and Dunedin.

"It -is idle to contend the crews ct these several vessels simultaneously departed from their practice of the previous three months without concerted action The union was behind the strike, and defendant's action shows that he approved of and assisted the attitude of the union. It. is true no incriminating documents were found in defendant's house or in the union's office. It is truo also defendant is liable to dismissal from the secretaryship of the union far unconstitutional action. -Once it is conceded that the 6trike was engineered by the defendant and his union the mere absence of incriminating documents, and the vehemence with which that r.bsenco has been insisted on, becomos presumptive evidence of guilt Again, the liability of the defendant to dismissal if he 'had exceeded his authority cuts both ways. It may establish presumption of either guilt or innocence according to the facte with which it is associated. "In my opinion there is proof of a seditious strike amongst the respective crews of the mosquito fleet, and that that striko has beon engineered by the union of Fhioh. defendant is general

secretary. Further, I must find that tho defendant took a part in inciting tho strike, although ho has succeeded in keeping in tho background. Defendant will be convicted." Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, representing the Crown, then said that h« would offer no evidonco respecting the charge against Young and Howell of having conspired with others to prosecute a seditious strike. . Mr. H. F. O'leary, coim.-el for Howell, submitted that Howell's caso was not one for imprisonment/ -Howell had served in the Navy for two years, and whatever his attitude in the. shipping trouble he had acted in what he deemed to be the best interests of the Mr. Macassey remarked that the strike was serious. Young said: "I wish lo impress on Your Worship that had the law of evidence been strictly adhered to in these proceedings no man would have bren convicted. Hut it seems to me that the law and tho regulations pertaining to this war have been made by the Government in such a manner as, to leave the liberty of any man or woman in this country absolutely insecure. I submit with all respectful diffidence that there is no evidence to convict nny much less send a inan to prison. This is a serious matter to me.for circumstances that 1 am not going to mention now; neither would I mention them during the trial. There is a great deal of doubt surrounding this matter, and I submit that a fine will meet the case. I stili hold that the evidence shows that Howell did not incite a strike, that I did not, and that the union did not sanction one. His Worship: In deciding what form the penalty is to take, I say, nothing whatever about the justice or injustice of the provision, or suggested provision, that there should be two men in a watch on every ship that puts to eta. What I have to consider is that there is a constitutional method of settling these disputes, and the defendants in each case have (according to my finding) adopted an unconstitutional method. The result has' been that little places lying off the beaten track have been inconvenienced in getting their _ supplies.. The decision that I have arrived at is that each defendant shall be c.oiivic.ed and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. ' • , ... The Court was. asked to fix securities for appeals, and it did so.