SEDITIOUS STRIKE CHARGE.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 October 1917, Page 4

SEDITIOUS STRIKE CHARGE.

STIUKK LKAniCItK ISKFORK THE COUKT.

By Telegraph.— Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 2

Thomas Young, secretary, and Fred'* crick Howell, assistant secretary of the ' Seamen's Union, were charged to-day in the Magistrate's Court with having conspired to procure a seditious strike. Counsel for the Crown said that when tin 1 Seamen's Union entered into an agreement as to working conditions last March, Young admitted that \t was unnecessary to have mora than one man on deck with an officer during each watch. On September 4 the union submitted contentions to the employers regarding the interpretation of the agreement, hut did not raise the question of ' an extra deck hand. The employers asked the union to submit a friendly; case for tho Arbitration Court, but Young refused, saying they should not be bound by any decision of that court, and that they had other means of get* ting what they wanted.' j Young here interjected: VThat is nos correct."

Counsel, continuing, said that on Sep* tember 7, Howell read to the seamen a; resolution passed by the union exhorting them not to go to sea without an extra) deck hand on the watch. The men them* selves were not anxious to strike as, under the new agreement, they were earning £2O to £25 per month. Frank William Berry, bosun of tha 'Queen of the South, who was called by | the prosecution, but treated as a hostile witness, said he got no instructions from Howell, and said he did not think he Md any interview with Detective Carney.

The following statement was put" in by Council: "I am a member of the. Seamen's Union, but the matter of this du< pute docs not affect me, but being a member of the union I will have to stick by the union and therefore I went to the union office on September 7 and saw Howell and asked hipi for'this union's instructions. Howell said we were not to take a ship to sea unless we had twnj men in a watch." ( 1 In reply to counsel witness said ho did not remember making the statement, •He could not deny it, but did riot remember it. > . ( Jackson, chief officer of the Huia, said he saw Howell on the vessel talking to the sailors. Later witness was told by the lamp trimmer that the men woi'l<* not sail without two in a watch.

Mr. O'Leary. Howell's counsel, address. ing the court, contended no case had been made out on legal evidence or safe evidence on which Howell could be convicted on this particular charge. Not one man had been brought forward who had sworn that Howell or anyone else had incited; him. There was no legal evidence against Howell, and the case should he dismiss* ed. • ( The magistrate said the, court was env titled to draw an inference that it was Howell who had incited these seamen, when there was legal evidence, and what was not strictly legal might D 9 used in corroboration. William Thomas Young, secretary of the union, gave evidence outlining th» proceedings at conference on September 4 and C. Asked what he meant when he said, "They had other mean* of dealing with the matter." ho said theW intended "to prosecute shipowners for tha breach of the agreement. Asked if hj» gave Howell any instructions before leav\ ing for Auckland, witness said he in«\ etructed Howell that he was to. advise | members of the result of the conference,' with the shipowners, and gave him par- , ticulars of the matters in dispute, and • embodying the views of the union on each.

Mr. O'Leary: Was there anything about, two men in a watch? Witness: As far as the union is concerned, it never considered the matter at all. Xo instructions were considered by me. and I had no authority to giv« 3Uch instructions. Mr. O'Leary: What was the first yoti knew of any trouble. '

Wi).ncss ; * On Sept. 8 I read a paragraph in an Auckland paper. Mr. O'Leary: Howell had no instructions to go down to the boats and bring men out. '

Witneos: No; it would have been more than his position with the union was worth to do so. The magistrate said the evidence of the last, witness was very plain on the subject that witness had not had anything to do with the alleged strike. Jt.left ■untouched, however, the position of the defendant. He was bound to assume in this ease, first of all, that there was n strike, nnd that defendant incited certain of the crews to strike. He would have to enter a conviction, and would defer saying what he would do until he had heard the other case. Youiif was then eharged. He pleaded not guilty, and salcl he would defend himself. v Mr Macassey said Young was the most 'prominent speaker at the conference with oraplovers. and made then what was taken'as a threat. When Captain Petersen was giving evidence defendant asked him how the men came to cease work. Witness said he gave instructions if the men refused to go to sea their employment was to be discontinued, Defendant: Did you know you had power under the Shipping Act to prosecute men for refusing duty? Why didn't you prosecute them, if it was the men "who struck? . , . Witness: Because we didn't thin* it was the men who caused the trouble, We thought it was the executive. The case was adjourned till to-morro'-