SEAMEN'S GRIEVANCE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 200, 13 May 1918, Page 6

SEAMEN'S GRIEVANCE

COMPLAINT ABOUT A SENTENCE

MINISTER FIRM

Allegations of harsh and unfair treatment of seamen under the War Regulations were made to tho Minister of Justice (the Hon. T. M. Wilford) by a deputation of the Seamen's Union which waited upou him on Saturday.

The secretary of the union, Mr. W. T. Young, referred to die caso of the seaman William Dunn who had been sentenced to imprisonment for six mouths for having left his position as guard over the gangway of n snip in port. It seemed to him that the sentence was unduly severe. The offence was really a trivial one, bull it had been magnified. There was ground for complaint about tho manner in which seamen were rushed bei fore tho Court in a hurry on the most pettifogging charges, without being given an opportunity of engaging counsel. Dunn had been hurried before the Court, and ho was not defended. If he had been charged under the Shipping and Seamen Act the penalty for each offence could have been only fourteen days' imprisonment, a total of 28 days for the two convictions, or a forfeiture of four days' pay. But the charge had been brought under the War Peculations, under which tho penalty might be twelve months' imprisonmont. The ship in question wa9 a transport, which \va3 protected by a. military guard on the wharf and a military guard on board. Dunn's presence was a most unimportant detail. His offence was a trivial one, and it was asked that the Minister should .use his influence to have some part of the sentence remitted. Mr. Wilfoi'd said that he could not beiicve that seamen were not allowed to engage counsel. If Mr. Young could supply names and detaite he would go into the matter with tho Commissioner of Police, aud the persons responsible would be dealt with. Mr. Young said that he could not give names, but lie would stand by his stateMr.' Wilford said that he did not think that Dunn could have been prosecuted under the Shipping and Seamen Act., That would havo. been .practicable in I peace times, but this .was a time of war. Dunn was a guard on an overseas vessel, j and the duty assigned to him was most important, for negligence or failure on his part might have meant that an enemy of the country or a malcontent would have had opportunity of doing mischief. The report nn tllc cl,sc snowed that the offence wns a serious one, because it was not known whether undesirables had gained admission to the ship in Dunn's absence. Ho could not see that in war time the sentence could be regarded as savage, and no evidence had been adduced which would warrant him in interfering with it. He would always be glad to hear seamen if they had complaints to make about alleged injustice, but in this case he would mako no eftort on Dunn's behali There wero cases in which remissions miiht be granted, but this was not one of them.