“DOUBLE-CROSSED”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 309, 21 March 1928, Page 14

“DOUBLE-CROSSED”

SHANGHAI ING IN THE EAST A PERSISTENT ABUSE (Written for THE SUN) One of the great grievances of the. seamen of the Far East is that they are very largely at the mercy of the boardinghouse keepers who afford them doss-room when they are in port and obtain berths for them a sufficient “squeeze” or commission is forthcoming-. . . A few years ago I made a special investigation of seafaring conditions in China and Japan, and in both countries bitter complaints were made of the methods of these “crimps”—as they were called when similar methods were practised in Britain and other TATestern lands „ , In Britain the chief ally of the crimp or shanghaier has been strong drink, under whose influence the sailor could be deprived of the earnings of his last job, and signed on to a new one, without his ever having time to get the grog fumes out of his head. In the East no such adventitious aid is needed. The overflowing labour market makes the Chinese —and to some extent the Japanese—willing to pay a high price to gain the comparatively well-paid appointments on the vessels. Sometimes the agents extort several months’ pay as their commission for allowing the men to get berths. In the case of stewards the commission is often considerably more than the men can earn in wages in the whole term for which they are engaged; they are dependent on tips for the whole of their pay and for something more as an additional douceur t 6 the boardinghouse keeper. In Australia the strength of the Seamen’s Unions, through which practically all the seafaring men are engaged, has put an end to the crimping abuse. The World’s Seamen’s Conference at Genoa in 1922 recommended that the system should be abolished in all countries. But the abuse is not easy to suppress.

THE WRONG WAY ABOUT In the present case concerning the three Chinese aboard the steamer Yoseric, the shanghai-ing agent at Shanghai seems to have adopted unusual methods, which brought him handsome remuneration from both sides. He had taken money from the men, according to their story, as payment for getting them into America. Obviously it was a smuggling scheme to get past the American exclusion laws; for the £SO mentioned as being paid in cash would far more than cover the cost of passage across the Pacific, and a further £350 for each man was to be paid—probably out of earnings obtained in the United States if the smuggling was successful. Such happenings are not unknown, but the boardinghouse keeper apparently double-crossed his men and sold them into service on the Yoseric. But if payments were made, as stated, by the boatswain and the head fireman to the boardinghouse keeper, this was a reversal of the usual procedure. Tlie explanation that suggests itself to the writer is that at the time —about nine months ago—there was a fierce anuBritish agitation throughout • China, and especially at Shanghai. It would doubtless be very difficult at such a time to pick up seafarers through the ordinary channels for British ships. According to the statement made by the head fireman and boatswain, three others had come aboard and signed the ship’s articles and had then made themselves scarce. The three now appealing to the court had been substituted. The British officers of the vessels, of course, would know no difference. j OHN BEAILSFORD.