THE DISCHARGE OF SEAMEN.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 57, 7 March 1913, Page 6

THE DISCHARGE OF SEAMEN.

(To tbe Editor.) Sir, —I was pleased to notice in the report of the deputation from the Auckland Bhipownere "that the Minister for Marine 'ia not going to be led by the nose by the representatives of the Shipowners' Federation in this city." I may point out at the outset that our largest shipowners were not repreeented by the deputation. The members of the deputation urged the Minister to reinstitute the system of continuous discharges, but they were met by the etraiglit-out statement that he (Mr Fieher) would not aid them in any return to euch a barbaric method of treating seamen. Personally, I cannot understand any person .who profeesee to have the slightest element of justice in hie make-up having the audacity to ask such a thing. The old system of continuous discharges placed the seaman body and eoul in the power o-f any officer of a vessel. It was divided into fourteen divisions ami covered a period of seven yeare. A seaman might serve six years on the same vessel, and during the whole of that time hie discharges may have been of the 'best. Yet after that long period of service he might have some dispute with an officer of a ve9eel, and all the years of good service aa shown by hie discharge are nullified by the officer marking hie certificate "D.R." (decline to report). Four yeare ago such an incident happened. A seaman had been on one of the Union Co.'c steamers for a lengthy period, and each time that hie discharge was filled up it wiuj marked "Very good." However, ■he had decided to leave the vessel, and the purser had arranged to meet him at the shipping office at a cejtajn time and fix him up. The man waited all day and the purser never arrived. The next day he visited the veeeel and aeked the purser why he had not kept his appointment. The purser replied that he was busy. The man retorted: "Well, if I carried out my engagements like that you would log mc." The purser wae talking to the skipper at the time. The skipper wae a new man who had just taken over the vessel, and the seaman in question had never 6ailed a day with him. He immediately took the man's continuous discharge and marked it "D.R.", which ie equivalent to a bad discharge. Thus the whole four or five years' record of this man was marred because he had the temerity to expect that the purser β-hould have kept his engagement with him. Why, even a prisoner in Mt. Eden ie not treated as badly ac a seaman. A prisoner might have testimonials of good conduct and ability from a number of employers, but if he committed a fault no gaoler would dare to mar all hie previous testimonials.

There is another matter that was dealt with by the deputation, and that was the replacing of A.B.s -with ordinary seamen and a boy. This is a matter that vitally affects the public safety, and the disasters of the past will, I think, prevent an easy acquiesence in any alteration in the manning of the small vessels running in and about the gulf. On some of these vessels there are only the maEter and two A.B.'s. One keeps watch •with the master and the other keeps watch on his own. To lower the standard of efficiency by removing one of these' A.B.s would not only be dangerous to the safety of the vessels thus manned, ibut to every other vessel trading in the gulf. We have found in the past by bitter experience that the safety of the travelling, public -must not be entrusted to the tender rnelrCies of an incompetent man or a boy. It may lessen dividends somewhat to insist on a safe manning of these vessels, biit they are the public's only convenience in many cases, and human life is more important than dividends.

Irrespective of party opinions, I am sure that Mr Fisher will enjoy the sunport of not only the seaman but also all fair-minded people in the attitude that he has taken up on these questions.—l am, etc., J. K. KNEEN. Secretary Seamen's Union.