Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4432, 3 June 1875, Page 2

The sentencing of seamen, to short terms of imprisonment for disobedience of orders, or for refusing to do lawful work, has become so frequent at Australian and New Zealand Ports, that public attention has been called to the matter. It is an undeniable fact that these sentences, in strict conformity with law, result in a very heavy pecuniary fine upon the community at large, who are compelled to find money for prison management. In that sense it is a great hardship indeed ; and it would be well if some means could be devised whereby the cost to the public could be recouped. Gaol labor is never reproductive, whatever may be said to the contrary; and wo are convinced the refractory seamen confined in the prisons

of the colony for breach of discipline, do not give a return in labor for the expenditure the country is put to on their account. It might be well to consider whether the ship in each case should not be responsible for the prison charges, the amount'to be treated as an advance to the men on completing the voyage. But however that may be, we see no help for it, when seamen disobey orders, but to bring them up under the Merchant Snipping Acts. It is improper to create false sympathy with men who knowingly and wilfully violate a written agreement, and by their misconduct entail loss upon shipowners, as in the case of the barque Sunbeam, at Wellington. But for the refusal of the six men who are now m gaol, to proceed to sea, the Sunbeam would have been towed out by the Phoebe, and, bulgin'* by the weather we have had, she might now be four hundred miles on her voyage. It has been represented that these men are the victims of their own too confiding innocence. But this is not the case. Any one who has had business dealings with sailors as a class, will give them credit for keeping a very sharp lookout after their own interests, in short, “ a jolly tar” is a creature of fiction, afT unlike the genuine “salt as a jellyfish is to a whale. The six men in question belong to this port, and they shipped in the Sunbeam at this port about a foitnight ago, signing articles for an intercolonial voyage of six months, with Captain Gorrie, or any other captain who might be'lawfully in charge of the vessel. These men had _no acquaintance with Mr. Gorrie before joining the ship, and he was only ten days in command after they joined. The pathetic narrative of the Post is, therefore, purely imaginary ; and so far. from being on terms of mutual trust and respect with their first commander in the Sunbeam, that gentleman, (who had been chief officer on the voyage from England,) complained to the agents, soon after shipping them," that they grumbled aiq their food, and would not eat biscuits similar to those consumed on the outward voyage by the crew and passengers without any objection. Moreover, they could not have been discharged at Newcastle, as has been stated, before the expiry of the voyage, without receiving a month’s pay; and they could not have been taken to San Francisco against their own will. When seamen have a real grievance we shall not scruple to take their part ; but in this case the injury has been done to the owners of the vessel and the public, both being mulcted in damages through these men’s misconduct.