"CRIMPING" ALLEGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 170, 19 July 1924, Page 11

"CRIMPING" ALLEGED.

AGAINST EMPLOYEE. , METHODS OF ENGAGING SEAMEN. i 3UGISTKATE RESERVES DECISION. -_„ depredations of the notorious ...InVa." Johnston were recalled, and the methods of the "press gang » ™ mentioned during a hearing of a -•ere menuo . ,„ w _j c h was con-tedlTS-lolSe Court before Mr. fw ronton, S.M., yesterday aftern Th» case was an unusual one. rtSfes Grant, an employee of the Union 0a swt, Compan--, Ltd., was charged " X tXmaXrwith What within t of six months past, not being _ Kr, master, mate, or engineer of TS *» did supply £eamen ffKEfoSSf Prosecutor was an d Mr. McNab Speared for the defendant Grant. P The case was opened on July 11 when c-veral witnesses gave evidence that Sly went to Grant who sent them to various ships where they were signed „„ Practically every witness said that it was impossible to obtain emXvment on a Union vessel unless they | er e recommended to the officer or engineer by Grant. Outline of the Case. Mr Paterson reserved his opening until yesterday. He said that the informations were laid by direction of the Minister of Marine under Section 7 of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1909. Defendant was charged with supplying i seamen within the meaning of that section which was passed originally to prevent "crimping." It was recognised that seamen were a class peculiarly subject to imposition. It was to stop that "crimping." Mr. Paterson emphasised that an employee of a company was no longer able to engage seamen since the case of "Shanghai" Johnston, who used to receive 5/ for every seaman he supplied. Mr. Poynton: Yes, and there was the old presf gangs who used to get the men drunk and place them on the ships where they afterwards sobered up. Mr. Paterson referred to the use that might creep in where an employee was allowed to engage men. The word "supply" in section 7 of the Act meant anyone who sent a seaman or fireman to an officer or an engineer of a ship for the purpose of engaging him. Counsel then quoted notable English cases hearing on the present charges. The facts were, said Mr. Paterson, that the men knew that there were vacancies on the Kawatiri. Two or three firemen went to Mr. Grant who sent them down to that vessel. There they saw the third engineer, the other officers being absent from the ship at the time. The third engineer was not aware of the position and told the men that if Grant had told them to turn to at 8 a.m. they had better do so. The men in question were not signed on the ship's articles until the 29th of the month, although their work, and also their pay commenced on the 27th. No one in the Kawatiri asked the men for their discharges and neither did they see them. That was very significant. A large number of ,men had stated in evidence that it was impossible to get a job on a Union Company steamer except through Grant. Rightly or wrongly that was the impression among seamen and firemen in Auckland, and it was an abuse of the Act. They knew always when vacancies occurred, and Mr. Paterson maintained that the men should he selected on their merits by the officers of the ship, otherwise it would lead to unfair discrimination and quite possibly, to exploitation and victimisation if the present system was allowed. Mr. Poynton: Well, so far, there has not been any evidence of that. In fact the evidence shows that Mr. Grant has always given a good man a job. Continuing, Mr. Paterson said that the Minister of Marine did not press for a severe penalty, although the maximum was a. fine of £20 for every man supplied. He did not suggest that Grant received money, but if the present system was allowed to continue others might do v' PI T> tller evidence " n " as then called by •Mr. Paterson in order to show system. Evidence of System. Hodgson Marshall, a master mariner, said he,had been seeking work before the mast and when he approached the Union Company for a job he was told to go and see Mr. Grant. Grant told Witness he would give him a job when there was a vacancy, and then took witBess name. Grant told witness last iaster that he would give him a bosuns m on the Tofua, but he was still out « work. Recently witness went to the mate of the Wairuna for a job, but the mate told _____ that he was -orry he could not give him a job. AU mci w«e engaged through Grant. Gro_.> f a ,, : did y° u So to Mr. t_Mw5 ell, because * was a l™ys 15 n 7 o°^ CerS ° f . Union boats tha * there Sough S CG ° f S * job except "Crimping" Defined. thft 01 ?? defence Mr ' McNa ° submitted ThL £_?" _"*? no case t0 answer, ihere had not, he said, been any cviSTJt "c P ? IyJ " WitMn the Eectlon ot -S „, .CrpPttg' meant the decoySfn « Conjunn S of men to force them into the army or merchant service. The evidence was that certain men had fnforrn.T- 866 Gt V lt the rec I for nifonnation as to where jobs were availtinn „ .* gave tliem tha * informa'„V™' ° n n° occasion did defendant Ro down to the vessels with them. hreman from going down to the officer On the ship a„d saying that "Grant sent urn«~, i e - V ° r f , f the witee sses for the prosecution had stated that Grant.was veniPn °r ma ,° n bureau -" " was concement for them to go to him, because CW _ ne3rl " y ever y seafaring man in 4ef n nd - ' ° thers had "**««* thft to L ffi S6CUred - lobs h y &°ing down Grant ° f VCSSGIS ; ' Uh ° Ut Becin S Said tLat section 7 *«» ih^i. ectlon ' and on th *t ground it should he strictly construed. I„ conen Wit , h th - e question of co^trucS_rSnri re - ferred - the to several cases in point. Had it hepn proved that GrantVd taken a'rewtrd or had even said that he would not jriv c W !t ™* ld have Snr-' bu x*_ in ever y case . except in Hohson's, the men had secured job! T^JfF 11011 '- - Grant is not morally responsible he is only technically reHe did not discrimmatXand -nan B°vT" With g °° d reCords J obs - A man rn,<-j_t glve a pr i soner soroe tobacCo ou of sheer good nature, but he would a technical offence after

Mr. Paterson: The defendant has been warned about this. I suggest that Grant does not do anything else than supply men. It is difficult to get the right men to come along here and give evidence. Mr. McNab: In none of these cases have the men gone to the inspector who was appointed to engage labour. Sir. Poynton: They go to Grant in preference to the inspector. Mr. Paterson: It is only since the strike that Grant has been doing this your Worship. Sydney Davidson, employed by the Union Company in the gear store, gave evidence as to Mr. Grant giving information to seamen and firemen about positions. The men approached him daily. Charles Grant described himself as a storeman in the employ of the Union Company. He did not engage seamen; that was not part of his duties. Witness was pestered daily by men who came to him. Invariably the men told him of the vacancies. Many men came to witness to ask him to put a word in for them. Mr. Paterson: How many hours per day do you put in in repairing gear? — Oh, it all depends how much has to be repaired. Lately I have had a good deal of spare time. What do you do in your spare time; do you see men on behalf of the Union Company?—No; that is not my job. Is it not a fact that officers refuse to sign men on until they have seen you ?—No. Who tells you of the vacancies? —The men. Mr. Poynton: What is the use of going into all this detail, Mr. Paterson? Mr. Paterson: Well, your Worship, I suggest that there is something more deep-rooted in this matter !H:han appears in court. Mr. Paterson: Here is a letter from the secretary of tho Merchant Service Guild, the officers supporting the seamen's allegations that you supplied men. Do you say in the face of this that you do not supply men? —Defendant: Yes. I do. Mr. McNab: Why don't you call the officers to give evidence here? Mr. Paterson: Because it is more than their jobs are worth. After further cross-examination the Magistrate intimated that he would give a written decision.